It costs MOD $0.15 to raise $1. So every one of those dimes sent out gets them 67 cents in return. It is only 'financially stupidest' if every other method of fundraising nets you more than 67 cents for every dime spent. What would all those superior methods be?
According to charitynavigtor, 75.5% of their money is spent on program, 10.7% is 'administrative', and 13.6% is on fundraising (it costs them $0.15 to raise $1).
So things like way of life, the economy, etc should have no bearing on his decisions? In that case, why not just ban all vehicles and industry? Problem solved!
There would probably be a tiny number of people who would support such a move, but certainly most people would not.
On the other hand, we could just eliminate all environmental protections. Again, a very few people would cheer, but most would not support such a move
In the real world there are an infinite number of possibilities between those two extremes, and choosing the right options certainly is more difficult than 'Yehaw trucks'.
New cars, with new safety features, are safer than old cars The higher the ratio of new-to-old cars, the safer the highways will be Fuel economy improvements drive up the price of cars Higher prices mean fewer people buying newer cars Fewer newer cars means more older cars, therefore decreasing safety.
Was that really that hard to figure out? The entire reasoning is in the summary
Copyright gives anyone and everyone (ie 'the people') who creates a work the exclusive rights to control that work. Prior to modern copyright law, no such right existed.
Copyright does not say who may make copies, it says the creator gets to decide that.
Your premise makes no sense. There were no copyright laws because there was virtually no copying.
Roll back the clock to the 1700's and eliminate the idea of copyrights (might as well through patents in there too). Now, how much of our 'culture' that you are so worried about 'making it through' would even exist?
That is the process that the FCC says must be followed. Customer contacts new carrier, new carrier contacts old carrier, old carrier may not refuse request, transfer must be completed by midnight the same day. If the old carrier required authorization from you that could result in them either refusing the transfer (not allowed) or failing to meet the transfer deadline.
The idea is to make it easy for customers to switch carriers without being given the run-around, having to jump through hoops, or being given the hard sell from the old carrier. Of course, where there is convenience there is always the possibility of fraud.
However, according to the EU, if you can create the same resistance to the same poison by bombarding some seeds with radiation or chemicals, then it is perfectly safe.
I didn't say is would be useful, I said it could be useful. An example would be to someone that has an allergy. On the other hand, a generic 'GMO' label is useful to nobody.
Except labeling something 'GMO' provides ZERO useful information (except to the torch-wielding villagers yelling 'kill the monster').
What could actually be USEFUL information would be exactly what proteins, etc are present. But then if it is important to know that, why is it not important to know if the exact same proteins, etc were created by some other method?
Neither one of those things has anything to do with 'cleaning up from previous users'. They are both rookie mistakes made by people with a Unix-y background.
On Unix-type systems, when you log on a shell process is created. If you start a program, the shell creates a new process (with it's own memory management, etc) and runs the program in that. The original shell process is not changed. When the process that was started ends, all of it's resources are automatically cleaned up by the OS.
On z/OS, when you log on (or a batch job is started) an 'address space' is created. All of the programs you execute run in that address space (as if they were subroutines). If a program ends (returns) without cleaning up it's resources, then those resources remain 'in use' for that address space. Your address space can eventually fill up (out of memory). But that has NOTHING to do with 'previous users', as every terminal session and batch job are in their own address space. When you log off, or your job ends, the address space is cleaned up by the OS.
For temp space, on Unix you get temp space by creating a file. The OS creates an inode which, initially, says the file length is zero. If you try to read from that file you can only read up to length in the inode.
On z/OS, you 'allocate' temp space. This reserves a place on the disk, but does not modify that area of the disk. If you attempt to read from that space before you write to it you are NOT guaranteed to get an 'end of file'. In fact, you propbably won't get that. You will get whatever was already on the disk at that point. IF what was on the disk can be read by your program (block sizes match, etc) you will get whatever was there (which is probably not what you want). If what was on the disk can't be read for whatever reason, your program abends. This difference is because z/OS does not have inodes. The end of the file is indicated by the HARDWARE when a zero-length block is read. If you didn't write that zero-length block, who knows what you will get. Again, this has nothing to do with 'previous users not cleaning up', but with the current user not understanding that they must WRITE at least an end-of-file marker before they attempt to READ a newly allocated space.
Does that make any sense to you at all? Why would he spend the resources of his company if he thought the market was that small?
Actually this came from a story he told. Before there were commercial computers, he had his engineers design one on paper. They then took the design to 20 potential customers to judge interest. The actual quote was 'I was hoping to get 5 orders, we got 18.'
Hoping for 5 orders out of potential 20, for a machine that doesn't exist, is far different than thinking there will only ever be a market for 5 computers.
What are you talking about? Exactly how does 'the user before you leave things in mess'? In 35+ years of experience with MVS (z/OS) I have never seen that happen.
This case has nothing to do with claims being denied. The bank has two types of coverage. The first is for 'computer and electronic fraud'. The coverage on that is $8M. That coverage explicitly EXCLUDES 'loses due to purported use of cards to obtain funds or credit'. It also explicity EXCLUDES 'loses from automatic mechanical devices which... disburse money...'.
The second coverage they have is for 'debit card/ATM fraud'. The coverage on that is $250K.
So what happened? The thieves, by phishing, got access to the computers and changed PINs, disabled fraud protection and daily limits, etc. They did not steal any money (wire transfers, etc). Then they went to 'hundreds of ATMs' and used fraudulent cards to get money.
So which coverage applies? The insurance company says it was card/ATM fraud, here's your $250K. The bank says if it wasn't for the computer fraud there would have been no ATM fraud, so the higher coverage should apply.
Interesting legal question, but hardly indicative that 'cybersecurity insurance is a joke'.
Yes, ATMs were how they got the money. The used the computer access to alter PINs, disable daily limits, etc, then used 'hundreds' of ATMs around the country to withdraw money.
The relevant parts of the contract are in TFA. It has nothing to do with any security measures or anything like that. The question is: which coverage applies? Was it 'computer fraud', which has a limit of $8M. Or was it 'debit card/ATM fraud', which has a limit of $250K. The bank says it was the first, the insurance company says it was the second.
I take it you have never actually read an insurance policy? There are quite often requirements and responsibilities on the insured. Failure to meet those responsibilities means that claims may be denied. There is no such thing as 'DEFACTO affirmation that they accepted the risk'.
You could just read TFA and see what the real issue is.
The bank has two types of coverage. The first is for 'computer and electronic crime'. The limit on that coverage is $8M. That coverage specificially excludes 'automated mechanical devices which... disburse money...'. as well as 'the purported use of cards to obtain funds or credit'.
The second coverage is a 'debit card rider' covering against ATM and debit card fraud. The limit on that coverage is $250K.
The insurance company says that since the theft was through ATMs, the second coverage is in effect, and the first is not (it has been excluded). The bank says that if it weren't for the 'hacking' on their computers the ATMs would have worked properly and therefore the first coverage should be in effect.
In either case there is certainly no 'fraud', just a disagreement about which coverage should apply.
But a 'GMO' label would provide no such useful information. Some genetic modifications may produce a specific protein, other modifications won't.
If it is important to know whether or not a specific protein is in a food, then it does not matter in the slightest how that protein got there. So again, just labeling something as 'GMO' says absolutely nothing useful. The only possible reasons to label something as 'GMO' is to humor idiots, or to attempt to confuse and/or alarm others (see the 'everything on the face of the eath is known to the State of California to cause cancer' labels for an example of such idiotic labeling).
Read a book on GMO "problems"? Nah, I prefer non-fiction to fantasy.
I have no agenda against proper labeling. I am all for proper labeling. A proper label is one that either prevents fraud (weights, ingredients), provides actual scientifically based information that is important for consumers (nutritional info), or warns of actual problems (allergies, etc). GMO labels do none of that. An improper label is one that serves no purpose other than to promote a political agenda by exploiting ignorance. That is a GMO label.
There are no GMO crops that are causing cancer in humans, so what is your point?
Jeez you are stupid. If mutation is only *changing* an existing gene, how did we (well, most of us, maybe not you) come to be different than plankton? That must have been some fucking great biology course you had.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but the OP didn't say 37% was spent in 'non program expenses', he said 37% was 'salary and benefits', which is pure BS.
It costs MOD $0.15 to raise $1. So every one of those dimes sent out gets them 67 cents in return. It is only 'financially stupidest' if every other method of fundraising nets you more than 67 cents for every dime spent. What would all those superior methods be?
That would be high if it were true. Fortunately, it is not. Their actual 'salary and benefits' is 10.7% (the CEOs salary is 0.29%).
According to charitynavigtor, 75.5% of their money is spent on program, 10.7% is 'administrative', and 13.6% is on fundraising (it costs them $0.15 to raise $1).
So things like way of life, the economy, etc should have no bearing on his decisions? In that case, why not just ban all vehicles and industry? Problem solved!
There would probably be a tiny number of people who would support such a move, but certainly most people would not.
On the other hand, we could just eliminate all environmental protections. Again, a very few people would cheer, but most would not support such a move
In the real world there are an infinite number of possibilities between those two extremes, and choosing the right options certainly is more difficult than 'Yehaw trucks'.
New cars, with new safety features, are safer than old cars
The higher the ratio of new-to-old cars, the safer the highways will be
Fuel economy improvements drive up the price of cars
Higher prices mean fewer people buying newer cars
Fewer newer cars means more older cars, therefore decreasing safety.
Was that really that hard to figure out? The entire reasoning is in the summary
Copyright gives anyone and everyone (ie 'the people') who creates a work the exclusive rights to control that work. Prior to modern copyright law, no such right existed.
Copyright does not say who may make copies, it says the creator gets to decide that.
Your premise makes no sense. There were no copyright laws because there was virtually no copying.
Roll back the clock to the 1700's and eliminate the idea of copyrights (might as well through patents in there too). Now, how much of our 'culture' that you are so worried about 'making it through' would even exist?
That is the process that the FCC says must be followed. Customer contacts new carrier, new carrier contacts old carrier, old carrier may not refuse request, transfer must be completed by midnight the same day. If the old carrier required authorization from you that could result in them either refusing the transfer (not allowed) or failing to meet the transfer deadline.
The idea is to make it easy for customers to switch carriers without being given the run-around, having to jump through hoops, or being given the hard sell from the old carrier. Of course, where there is convenience there is always the possibility of fraud.
However, according to the EU, if you can create the same resistance to the same poison by bombarding some seeds with radiation or chemicals, then it is perfectly safe.
Plants have been patentable since the 1930s. The ability to patent seeds has nothing to do with GMO.
I didn't say is would be useful, I said it could be useful. An example would be to someone that has an allergy. On the other hand, a generic 'GMO' label is useful to nobody.
Yes, that would be the 'torch wielding villagers' (aka morons) that I mentioned. Name a SINGLE problem that generic 'GMO' causes. Just one.
Except labeling something 'GMO' provides ZERO useful information (except to the torch-wielding villagers yelling 'kill the monster').
What could actually be USEFUL information would be exactly what proteins, etc are present. But then if it is important to know that, why is it not important to know if the exact same proteins, etc were created by some other method?
Neither one of those things has anything to do with 'cleaning up from previous users'. They are both rookie mistakes made by people with a Unix-y background.
On Unix-type systems, when you log on a shell process is created. If you start a program, the shell creates a new process (with it's own memory management, etc) and runs the program in that. The original shell process is not changed. When the process that was started ends, all of it's resources are automatically cleaned up by the OS.
On z/OS, when you log on (or a batch job is started) an 'address space' is created. All of the programs you execute run in that address space (as if they were subroutines). If a program ends (returns) without cleaning up it's resources, then those resources remain 'in use' for that address space. Your address space can eventually fill up (out of memory). But that has NOTHING to do with 'previous users', as every terminal session and batch job are in their own address space. When you log off, or your job ends, the address space is cleaned up by the OS.
For temp space, on Unix you get temp space by creating a file. The OS creates an inode which, initially, says the file length is zero. If you try to read from that file you can only read up to length in the inode.
On z/OS, you 'allocate' temp space. This reserves a place on the disk, but does not modify that area of the disk. If you attempt to read from that space before you write to it you are NOT guaranteed to get an 'end of file'. In fact, you propbably won't get that. You will get whatever was already on the disk at that point. IF what was on the disk can be read by your program (block sizes match, etc) you will get whatever was there (which is probably not what you want). If what was on the disk can't be read for whatever reason, your program abends. This difference is because z/OS does not have inodes. The end of the file is indicated by the HARDWARE when a zero-length block is read. If you didn't write that zero-length block, who knows what you will get. Again, this has nothing to do with 'previous users not cleaning up', but with the current user not understanding that they must WRITE at least an end-of-file marker before they attempt to READ a newly allocated space.
Does that make any sense to you at all? Why would he spend the resources of his company if he thought the market was that small?
Actually this came from a story he told. Before there were commercial computers, he had his engineers design one on paper. They then took the design to 20 potential customers to judge interest. The actual quote was 'I was hoping to get 5 orders, we got 18.'
Hoping for 5 orders out of potential 20, for a machine that doesn't exist, is far different than thinking there will only ever be a market for 5 computers.
What are you talking about? Exactly how does 'the user before you leave things in mess'? In 35+ years of experience with MVS (z/OS) I have never seen that happen.
This case has nothing to do with claims being denied. The bank has two types of coverage. The first is for 'computer and electronic fraud'. The coverage on that is $8M. That coverage explicitly EXCLUDES 'loses due to purported use of cards to obtain funds or credit'. It also explicity EXCLUDES 'loses from automatic mechanical devices which ... disburse money ...'.
The second coverage they have is for 'debit card/ATM fraud'. The coverage on that is $250K.
So what happened? The thieves, by phishing, got access to the computers and changed PINs, disabled fraud protection and daily limits, etc. They did not steal any money (wire transfers, etc). Then they went to 'hundreds of ATMs' and used fraudulent cards to get money.
So which coverage applies? The insurance company says it was card/ATM fraud, here's your $250K. The bank says if it wasn't for the computer fraud there would have been no ATM fraud, so the higher coverage should apply.
Interesting legal question, but hardly indicative that 'cybersecurity insurance is a joke'.
Yes, ATMs were how they got the money. The used the computer access to alter PINs, disable daily limits, etc, then used 'hundreds' of ATMs around the country to withdraw money.
The relevant parts of the contract are in TFA. It has nothing to do with any security measures or anything like that. The question is: which coverage applies? Was it 'computer fraud', which has a limit of $8M. Or was it 'debit card/ATM fraud', which has a limit of $250K. The bank says it was the first, the insurance company says it was the second.
I take it you have never actually read an insurance policy? There are quite often requirements and responsibilities on the insured. Failure to meet those responsibilities means that claims may be denied. There is no such thing as 'DEFACTO affirmation that they accepted the risk'.
You could just read TFA and see what the real issue is.
The bank has two types of coverage. The first is for 'computer and electronic crime'. The limit on that coverage is $8M. That coverage specificially excludes 'automated mechanical devices which ... disburse money ...'. as well as 'the purported use of cards to obtain funds or credit'.
The second coverage is a 'debit card rider' covering against ATM and debit card fraud. The limit on that coverage is $250K.
The insurance company says that since the theft was through ATMs, the second coverage is in effect, and the first is not (it has been excluded). The bank says that if it weren't for the 'hacking' on their computers the ATMs would have worked properly and therefore the first coverage should be in effect.
In either case there is certainly no 'fraud', just a disagreement about which coverage should apply.
But a 'GMO' label would provide no such useful information. Some genetic modifications may produce a specific protein, other modifications won't.
If it is important to know whether or not a specific protein is in a food, then it does not matter in the slightest how that protein got there. So again, just labeling something as 'GMO' says absolutely nothing useful. The only possible reasons to label something as 'GMO' is to humor idiots, or to attempt to confuse and/or alarm others (see the 'everything on the face of the eath is known to the State of California to cause cancer' labels for an example of such idiotic labeling).
Read a book on GMO "problems"? Nah, I prefer non-fiction to fantasy.
I have no agenda against proper labeling. I am all for proper labeling. A proper label is one that either prevents fraud (weights, ingredients), provides actual scientifically based information that is important for consumers (nutritional info), or warns of actual problems (allergies, etc). GMO labels do none of that. An improper label is one that serves no purpose other than to promote a political agenda by exploiting ignorance. That is a GMO label.
There are no GMO crops that are causing cancer in humans, so what is your point?
Jeez you are stupid. If mutation is only *changing* an existing gene, how did we (well, most of us, maybe not you) come to be different than plankton? That must have been some fucking great biology course you had.