Just out of curiousity, what kind of parts are you talking about, where a 3D printed piece of plastic would be an acceptable replacement? In my work on my own older home, the things that are in the can't find/hard to find category are all either structural (2x4s that are actually 2 inches by 4 inches), functional (doorknobs, etc), or decorative (plaster rosettes, etc). None of those are suitably replaced with a piece of plastic, regardless of whether or not it actually 'fits'.
What legal precidence are you talking about? That is completely incorrect. Take something that looks like it might be copyrighted to Kinko's and ask them to copy it. They won't.
That didn't stop the buffoons in PETA from demanding they change the name (they helpfully suggested 'Fishsave'). Somehow they missed all the other 'kills' in NYS (Catskill, Otterkill, Freshkill, etc).
Of course it makes sense. Insurance rates are based on risk. Are you claiming that a car that is on the road all day long, in very congested conditions, making frequent stops to pick up/drop off passengers has no more risk of being in a collision than any other vehicle?
Make sure your new numbers are at least plausible, unlike your old numbers.
Lets use your example of Ford. Ford had an EBITDA of around $16B last year. According to your numbers, the labor force only made about 10% of that, or $1.6B dollars. Assume that all value paid to the employees is in the form of cash (no benefits at all). Ford employs around 224,000 people. By your calculation, the average Ford employee made only $7142 last year. Does that sound even remotely possible to you? All those union production workers, engineers, designers, equipment techs, IT personnel, management, etc made on average $7142, with no benefits at all. You are off by at least a factor of 10, which means the employees keep at LEAST 50% of the value they produce, and often quite a bit more than that.
Your numbers are completely ficticious and way out of line with reality. What real business has a profit number that is 11X its labor cost? Think of a business like Google - almost all of it's expense is labor. Unless Google's net profit margin is above 50% (and it is not) the employees are keeping more of their 'value' than the company is.
If your numbers were in any way true, there would be no need for companies to control labor costs - they make up less than 9% of the cost. Any cost-cutting measures that targetted something other than labor would be far more effective than targetting labor costs.
I think you need to re-examine who needs to offer a competing product. Complete this sentence: without Aereo, broadcasters and cable companies deliver programming - without broadcasters, Aereo delivers ________
You can't go into a store, steal a bunch of stuff, sell it on the street, and seriously claim that the stores should offer 'competing product'.
No. First, to run afoul of anti-trust laws you first need to be a trust, which Sony isn't. Second, tying has nothing to do with co-reqs or pre-reqs. If it did, then every game Sony sells would be claimed to be 'tied' to purchase of a PS. Third, tying is requiring purchase of an unrelated thing in order to get the desired thing, for anti-competitive reasons. For example, if Sony had a monopoly (they don't) and the only way you could get a game was if you also bought 'the official game guide', that could be seen as tying, because the purpose of it is to get people to buy a Sony game guide so they don't buy someone else's. None of that applies here.
I didn't say 'be liable', I said 'pay'. There is a huge difference. I can 'be liable' for $1M, but if I only have $500 in assets there is no way someone is getting $1M from me.
This thread is about people who think it is unreasonable to have laws such as requiring cab drivers to have insurance. In the absense of such laws, how is the driver going to face criminal charges?
First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?
Second, you do realize that everyone, through increased insurance rates, pays for the cost of those uninsured drivers, right? So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab? I see no positive benefit to that at all.
No, it should not be quck and easy to do that. Cities have too much congestion already. Limiting the number of cabs is a good thing, as it both limits the number of cars, and increases the cost of cars so that public transport is cheap in comparison. More people riding public transport lowers pollution, etc.
The second point is that most people do NOT have insurance that covers driving for hire. That insurance is considerably more expensive, and thus will raise the cost of a ride, probably to the point where it is no longer profitable (which is why Uber is saying having to do that would make the service 'not viable'.)
Answer the question: who pays to cover the pedestrian? One option is the driver. Of course, if the driver has little assets (and chances are he would not be driving a cab if he was rich), he can't pay. The only other person involved in this wonderful libertarian world would be the passenger. But, of course, HE couldn't be expected to pay. So that leaves only two choices: either the pedestrian himself is responsible for all his bills (including loss of income, etc), or all of society pays (either through the goverment, or through higher insurance rates for everyone). And if random people and/or all of society are going to have to cover the cost of damage inflicted by a cab driver, then all of society damn well has a right to insist, through (gasp) regulations, that the driver of a cab must demonstrate the financial wherewithall to pay for damage he potentially causes (usually by purchasing insurance).
Your 'friend' example is stupid, because drivers ARE required to carry insurance. If they don't have insurance, society covers the cost, but the driver has violated a law.
Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?
By the end of October (when Sandy happened) much of the vegetation in NY is going dormant (you know, the whole 'fall foliage' thing) and is not taking up much water. Could have had a very different impact if that flooding occurred in Spring.
True, and in this case the 'safe' is the server, and the 'lock on the door' is the user's password. The problem then is you are basically saying 'I have a really crappy safe (server security), so I will make up for that by making you carry a 20-lb key around'. Fix the damn safe, and leave the keys alone!
If you are talking about 'inside jobs' and 'impossible', then why not just assume that the 'inside' person has installed malicious software that captures all the plaintext passwords and writes them somewhere? Doesn't matter how strong the passwords are then, does it? So the real concern here is not inside jobs so much as accidental leaks.
So the question is: why is the password file (not the passwords themselves) an unecrypted plain-text file? Encrypt the thing! Have all handling of passwords done by a special hardware module that accepts the key (with different portions of the key entered by different people) and the encrypted file, and returns simple 'yes' or 'no' responses to password requests (it would also handle password changes, etc). Now there is nothing to accidentally leak.
Once that is done, a simple 'passwords can't be tested more than once every two seconds' pretty much eliminates on-line brute force attacks, and offline attacks are impossible. Then the only password rules should be very simple, like no 'obvious' passwords (such as password).
Forcing all these stupid rules on users is just a way to shift the blame away from the real problem, which is poor security on the server.
Slashdot Mirror
Just out of curiousity, what kind of parts are you talking about, where a 3D printed piece of plastic would be an acceptable replacement? In my work on my own older home, the things that are in the can't find/hard to find category are all either structural (2x4s that are actually 2 inches by 4 inches), functional (doorknobs, etc), or decorative (plaster rosettes, etc). None of those are suitably replaced with a piece of plastic, regardless of whether or not it actually 'fits'.
What legal precidence are you talking about? That is completely incorrect. Take something that looks like it might be copyrighted to Kinko's and ask them to copy it. They won't.
That didn't stop the buffoons in PETA from demanding they change the name (they helpfully suggested 'Fishsave'). Somehow they missed all the other 'kills' in NYS (Catskill, Otterkill, Freshkill, etc).
Close. GF wants the IP and people for chip making. IBM wants the IP and people for chip designing.
No, it does not (at least on RHEL). yum list updates shows no available updates to the redhat-release-workstation package.
Uh, no.
RHEL 6.5 is just RHEL 6.4 with all the updates already applied. Applying the updates does not change the system-release file.
And like I said, mozilla itself reports that Firefox is at the latest level.
#cat system-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Workstation release 6.4 (Santiago)
#yum list firefox
Installed Packages
firefox.x86_64 24.4.0-1.el6_5 @RHEL-64-x86_64-updates
Go to firefox.com and see 'Congrats! You're using the latest version of Firefox.'
Of course it makes sense. Insurance rates are based on risk. Are you claiming that a car that is on the road all day long, in very congested conditions, making frequent stops to pick up/drop off passengers has no more risk of being in a collision than any other vehicle?
Cab fares are regulated in NYC. Competition has nothing to do with it. http://www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/ht...
You do realize there may be people injured in an accident who are not customers of Uber, right?
Make sure your new numbers are at least plausible, unlike your old numbers.
Lets use your example of Ford. Ford had an EBITDA of around $16B last year. According to your numbers, the labor force only made about 10% of that, or $1.6B dollars. Assume that all value paid to the employees is in the form of cash (no benefits at all). Ford employs around 224,000 people. By your calculation, the average Ford employee made only $7142 last year. Does that sound even remotely possible to you? All those union production workers, engineers, designers, equipment techs, IT personnel, management, etc made on average $7142, with no benefits at all. You are off by at least a factor of 10, which means the employees keep at LEAST 50% of the value they produce, and often quite a bit more than that.
From HBO. Of course, it will cost many millions of dollars, but then you own it and can do whatever you want with it.
Your numbers are completely ficticious and way out of line with reality. What real business has a profit number that is 11X its labor cost? Think of a business like Google - almost all of it's expense is labor. Unless Google's net profit margin is above 50% (and it is not) the employees are keeping more of their 'value' than the company is.
If your numbers were in any way true, there would be no need for companies to control labor costs - they make up less than 9% of the cost. Any cost-cutting measures that targetted something other than labor would be far more effective than targetting labor costs.
I think you need to re-examine who needs to offer a competing product. Complete this sentence: without Aereo, broadcasters and cable companies deliver programming - without broadcasters, Aereo delivers ________
You can't go into a store, steal a bunch of stuff, sell it on the street, and seriously claim that the stores should offer 'competing product'.
Ha-ha! Good one! You are saying if you were to develop a game as described, some big mean company could just buy you out without your consent?
The companies get bought because they are grubbing for money just like everyone else.
No. First, to run afoul of anti-trust laws you first need to be a trust, which Sony isn't. Second, tying has nothing to do with co-reqs or pre-reqs. If it did, then every game Sony sells would be claimed to be 'tied' to purchase of a PS. Third, tying is requiring purchase of an unrelated thing in order to get the desired thing, for anti-competitive reasons. For example, if Sony had a monopoly (they don't) and the only way you could get a game was if you also bought 'the official game guide', that could be seen as tying, because the purpose of it is to get people to buy a Sony game guide so they don't buy someone else's. None of that applies here.
I didn't say 'be liable', I said 'pay'. There is a huge difference. I can 'be liable' for $1M, but if I only have $500 in assets there is no way someone is getting $1M from me.
This thread is about people who think it is unreasonable to have laws such as requiring cab drivers to have insurance. In the absense of such laws, how is the driver going to face criminal charges?
First, it is illegal to drive without insurance. Do people do it? Of course. Is it generally condoned by society? No. So why should it be OK for someone who wants to be a cab driver to drive without sufficient insurance?
Second, you do realize that everyone, through increased insurance rates, pays for the cost of those uninsured drivers, right? So why should all of society be forced to pay for to supposed 'right' of someone to drive an uninsured cab? I see no positive benefit to that at all.
No, it should not be quck and easy to do that. Cities have too much congestion already. Limiting the number of cabs is a good thing, as it both limits the number of cars, and increases the cost of cars so that public transport is cheap in comparison. More people riding public transport lowers pollution, etc.
The second point is that most people do NOT have insurance that covers driving for hire. That insurance is considerably more expensive, and thus will raise the cost of a ride, probably to the point where it is no longer profitable (which is why Uber is saying having to do that would make the service 'not viable'.)
Answer the question: who pays to cover the pedestrian? One option is the driver. Of course, if the driver has little assets (and chances are he would not be driving a cab if he was rich), he can't pay. The only other person involved in this wonderful libertarian world would be the passenger. But, of course, HE couldn't be expected to pay. So that leaves only two choices: either the pedestrian himself is responsible for all his bills (including loss of income, etc), or all of society pays (either through the goverment, or through higher insurance rates for everyone). And if random people and/or all of society are going to have to cover the cost of damage inflicted by a cab driver, then all of society damn well has a right to insist, through (gasp) regulations, that the driver of a cab must demonstrate the financial wherewithall to pay for damage he potentially causes (usually by purchasing insurance).
Your 'friend' example is stupid, because drivers ARE required to carry insurance. If they don't have insurance, society covers the cost, but the driver has violated a law.
Libertarian chooses unregulated cab. Said unregulated cab hits pedestrian. Insurance company of unregulated cab says 'your policy is for personal use only, we are not paying'. Who pays for pedestrian's injuries, the libertarian?
By the end of October (when Sandy happened) much of the vegetation in NY is going dormant (you know, the whole 'fall foliage' thing) and is not taking up much water. Could have had a very different impact if that flooding occurred in Spring.
True, and in this case the 'safe' is the server, and the 'lock on the door' is the user's password. The problem then is you are basically saying 'I have a really crappy safe (server security), so I will make up for that by making you carry a 20-lb key around'. Fix the damn safe, and leave the keys alone!
If you are talking about 'inside jobs' and 'impossible', then why not just assume that the 'inside' person has installed malicious software that captures all the plaintext passwords and writes them somewhere? Doesn't matter how strong the passwords are then, does it? So the real concern here is not inside jobs so much as accidental leaks.
So the question is: why is the password file (not the passwords themselves) an unecrypted plain-text file? Encrypt the thing! Have all handling of passwords done by a special hardware module that accepts the key (with different portions of the key entered by different people) and the encrypted file, and returns simple 'yes' or 'no' responses to password requests (it would also handle password changes, etc). Now there is nothing to accidentally leak.
Once that is done, a simple 'passwords can't be tested more than once every two seconds' pretty much eliminates on-line brute force attacks, and offline attacks are impossible. Then the only password rules should be very simple, like no 'obvious' passwords (such as password).
Forcing all these stupid rules on users is just a way to shift the blame away from the real problem, which is poor security on the server.
Estimates are that between 50 and 80% of the worlds data is on tape. If you have not heard of it, that is your problem.