...so you're saying that other sites shouldn't be using the "best" security for their login process? They should intentionally use weaker security than banks?
These aren't the same thing at all; if someone has something on an internal network, it'll be faster just by virtue of how the internet works. It's the option of artificially slowing down some traffic that is the issue.
They' be in the top 1% only by raw numbers; the problem is that a raw income number is meaningless unless you factor in cost of living considerations. In most of the US midwest you can get by on $34k/yr., but move to a large city on one of the coasts, and you'll likely find that 34k is worth a lot less there.
The Jury was claiming finding the later editions of the game to be nearly identical ------ without the jury having been presented for side-by-side comparison as evidence
How is this the fault of the jury, rather than the fault of the defense team?
It's good to see that if I've got enough cash and I ever break the law, all I need to do is refuse to show an "expert witness" is wrong - it's far easier to just find a convenient judge to rule that since I didn't present any evidence, they jury's verdict should be overturned. *facepalm*
Maybe. It depends on how the business receiving the funds is structured. For a sole proprietorship, any money that comes into the business is considered profit,
No, any money that comes into the business is considered income, not profit. Profit (which is what you are taxed on) is (in simplest terms) income minus expenses. You can check Wikipedia for more information.
Experian needs to close its business. Pay fines, restitution, etc, and distribute whatever remains to it's shareholders.
No. The company should be shut down, and the shareholders get nothing. Until the government has the balls to destroy companies that do something this egregious, and not give the shareholders a walk, companies will keep doing this sort of shit. If a company could be erased entirely, and all stocks devalued to worthlessness, if they do something so massively illegal on this scale then maybe shareholders would hold the companies they own up to some sort of ethical standard, rather than always rewarding them for a company's lack of ethics.
You need teachers that can teach the old fashioned way to accomplish something.
Old fashion or new fashion, teachers' teaching styles are not the problem. The problem is that while they still teach facts, the often discourage actually thinking. The incessant attacks by both parties upon the idea that children can think are making it so that by the time they are out of school, they can't think.
Twenty years ago the idea that having an obviously-fake gun in school would get you in trouble, let alone kicked out or arrested, would be considered completely ludicrous. Be it anti-gun, anti-evolution, anti-whatever, schools have shifted their focus from teaching kids critical thinking and teaching them to question the world around them. Now they teach toeing the line, doing what they're told, and never questioning authority. Zero-tolerance policies are at the apex of this trend; it institutionalizes the concept of not thinking when a situation comes up, but instead doing exactly what you have been told to do. When you tell children that even teachers and school administrators are not allowed to use their judgment, why would kids ever think they should? Add to this the terror-inducing effects of zero-tolerance policies (i.e. "If someone would use a nerf gun, they'd probably also shoot you with a real one!"), and you reinforce the idea that you need to be terrified of everything, and trying to use your own judgment is a bad idea.
You want to improve things, it's not by going back to old teaching methods, it's by allowing teachers to teach thinking again and not by forcing them to be pawns in the organized "sheltering of young minds" that the administrations seem to be all too happy to go along with.
You need to be in possession/show valid government issued ID to:
- board a plane - rent a car - drive a car - hunt - enroll in college - buy alcohol
Inner-city poor typically require none of those. The first five they often don't use or can't afford, and the last one (alcohol) is easy to get without an ID even when you're under-age. Once you start looking 21+, it's even easier.
And, while voter fraud does exist, studies have found that in recent decades fake people showing up to vote has a negligible impact - the real fraud happening are issues of mass tampering (such as changing computer voting records, incorrectly flagging thousands of people as non-voting felons, "losing" boxes full of ballots, etc.) Rather than preventing vote fraud, the ID requirements are must more often used for voter intimidation. More information here.
a) have "Human Resources" (as if people are some resource to be exploited) instead of "Human Assets" where employees are viewed as an _investment_, b) can fire your ass at a moment's notice (i.e. At-Will-Employment) c) yet still expect the "common courtesy" of two weeks.
True, but your three points are hardly what show if a company shows you respect or not - every business I've worked at had those three policies in place, and my experiences with them were widely different. (a) is just the standard term for the department; (b) is usually only used in the case of gross negligence or criminal activity; and (c) is only vaguely expected by any employer (really, it's more of a don't-screw-your-coworkers guideline).
A company doesn't show it respects you or not by whether or not they adhere to that type of stuff, but by how they choose to wield their power over you, and how they deal with you on a day-to-day basis. If they are truthful, listen to your concerns, and are reasonably flexible with schedules when problems come up, I find that far more of an indicator of if they respect and value you as an employee than what they call the HR department.
What good is unemployment if you've already got a job on the line. Your going to stand in line for a weeks worth of pittance?
"Stand in line"? What is this, the 1900's? Most states let you file it all online. As for what you get - it will only be "a pittance" if your payrate was "a pittance". Typically, your benefits will be based on your previous payrate, so if you were being payed well, your UI checks will be good money (especially for doing nothing but filing a few forms). (Locally, the rate is 62-65% of your normal weekly pay, so if you'd been getting $1000/week, your UI would be ~ $620/week. Hardly a "pittance".)
The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago
30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.
although there are those special enclaves where loyalty is everything, good luck in finding one and greater luck in getting hired.
You'll have a hard time getting hired mostly because everybody who has a job there is unlikely to leave anytime soon.
If someone has invested a lot in training you and you jump ship to go somewhere else that could result in some burned bridges.
That depends on how soon after the training you jump ship. If you complete the training and immediately go elsewhere, yeah - they'll assume you were taking advantage of them. If you worked for a couple of years before jumping ship, that just means you felt underpaid or under-appreciated, or got offered a much better position elsewhere, which are the normal, more benign reasons for leaving.
I've seen sales people jump ship and take customers with them when they get a better deal. That rarely results in fond feelings.
That's because customers are a company asset, and quite often the most important one. Taking a company's customers with you when you leave is more harmful than if you walked out with a half the office equipment under your coat. Theft of property is single-instance harm (and often insured) - theft of a customer is a straight loss that keeps recurring every time that customer would have bought something.
The Feds had roughly four years to set up a reporting system and failed, which I think goes a long way to illustrating how not-"light in comparison" Obamacare is, relative to a simple voter ID bill.
The voter ID bill discourages the poor from voting, thus benefiting the rich. The Affordable Care Act benefits the poor more than the rich. Simple vs. complex isn't the issue here.
Got a nice 300 ft 12Ga extention cord out of the deal. Why wouldn't you come back to get that? Although with the amount they charged me I pretty much paid for it anyway.
The reason why is because you're not going to dive 30 minutes out of your way to get a $20 extension cord, let alone a $5 hammer/wrench/screwdriver. Add in the fact that going back can make you late for the next appointment you have, and it's pretty much just not going to happen.
Slashdot Mirror
...so you're saying that other sites shouldn't be using the "best" security for their login process? They should intentionally use weaker security than banks?
These aren't the same thing at all; if someone has something on an internal network, it'll be faster just by virtue of how the internet works. It's the option of artificially slowing down some traffic that is the issue.
They' be in the top 1% only by raw numbers; the problem is that a raw income number is meaningless unless you factor in cost of living considerations. In most of the US midwest you can get by on $34k/yr., but move to a large city on one of the coasts, and you'll likely find that 34k is worth a lot less there.
[...] also there is always the chance that the other party will run out of money and give up. Being a civil case this is fair game.
No, as always, a "deep pockets" win is not a fair game, it is dirty pool.
The Jury was claiming finding the later editions of the game to be nearly identical ------ without the jury having been presented for side-by-side comparison as evidence
How is this the fault of the jury, rather than the fault of the defense team?
It's good to see that if I've got enough cash and I ever break the law, all I need to do is refuse to show an "expert witness" is wrong - it's far easier to just find a convenient judge to rule that since I didn't present any evidence, they jury's verdict should be overturned. *facepalm*
Obligatory Armstrong & Miller link.
Legalise It And Tax It!
...and then subsidize it!
Thanks SlashDot - where else could I get the weather report?
I'm pretty sure iTunes has most/all of their discography.
Where is global warming when you need it?
Outside.
Maybe. It depends on how the business receiving the funds is structured. For a sole proprietorship, any money that comes into the business is considered profit,
No, any money that comes into the business is considered income, not profit. Profit (which is what you are taxed on) is (in simplest terms) income minus expenses. You can check Wikipedia for more information.
... and now it's linked to Noël Coward!
We look like such fools.. Talk up how awesome NASA was!
The other way to look at it is; "look how awesome NASA used to be - let's fund them again, and get more awesome like this, dammit!"
I'd make him sing a little song.
Daisy, Daaaaiiiisssssyyyy....
Experian needs to close its business. Pay fines, restitution, etc, and distribute whatever remains to it's shareholders.
No. The company should be shut down, and the shareholders get nothing. Until the government has the balls to destroy companies that do something this egregious, and not give the shareholders a walk, companies will keep doing this sort of shit. If a company could be erased entirely, and all stocks devalued to worthlessness, if they do something so massively illegal on this scale then maybe shareholders would hold the companies they own up to some sort of ethical standard, rather than always rewarding them for a company's lack of ethics.
Way to put a bullet in people's dreams.
Add a gun to those dreams, too, and now we have a possible solution.
These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law. That's terrorism
I thought that was governments and corporations?
You need teachers that can teach the old fashioned way to accomplish something.
Old fashion or new fashion, teachers' teaching styles are not the problem. The problem is that while they still teach facts, the often discourage actually thinking. The incessant attacks by both parties upon the idea that children can think are making it so that by the time they are out of school, they can't think.
Twenty years ago the idea that having an obviously-fake gun in school would get you in trouble, let alone kicked out or arrested, would be considered completely ludicrous. Be it anti-gun, anti-evolution, anti-whatever, schools have shifted their focus from teaching kids critical thinking and teaching them to question the world around them. Now they teach toeing the line, doing what they're told, and never questioning authority. Zero-tolerance policies are at the apex of this trend; it institutionalizes the concept of not thinking when a situation comes up, but instead doing exactly what you have been told to do. When you tell children that even teachers and school administrators are not allowed to use their judgment, why would kids ever think they should? Add to this the terror-inducing effects of zero-tolerance policies (i.e. "If someone would use a nerf gun, they'd probably also shoot you with a real one!"), and you reinforce the idea that you need to be terrified of everything, and trying to use your own judgment is a bad idea.
You want to improve things, it's not by going back to old teaching methods, it's by allowing teachers to teach thinking again and not by forcing them to be pawns in the organized "sheltering of young minds" that the administrations seem to be all too happy to go along with.
You need to be in possession/show valid government issued ID to:
- board a plane
- rent a car
- drive a car
- hunt
- enroll in college
- buy alcohol
Inner-city poor typically require none of those. The first five they often don't use or can't afford, and the last one (alcohol) is easy to get without an ID even when you're under-age. Once you start looking 21+, it's even easier.
And, while voter fraud does exist, studies have found that in recent decades fake people showing up to vote has a negligible impact - the real fraud happening are issues of mass tampering (such as changing computer voting records, incorrectly flagging thousands of people as non-voting felons, "losing" boxes full of ballots, etc.) Rather than preventing vote fraud, the ID requirements are must more often used for voter intimidation. More information here.
a) have "Human Resources" (as if people are some resource to be exploited) instead of "Human Assets" where employees are viewed as an _investment_,
b) can fire your ass at a moment's notice (i.e. At-Will-Employment)
c) yet still expect the "common courtesy" of two weeks.
True, but your three points are hardly what show if a company shows you respect or not - every business I've worked at had those three policies in place, and my experiences with them were widely different. (a) is just the standard term for the department; (b) is usually only used in the case of gross negligence or criminal activity; and (c) is only vaguely expected by any employer (really, it's more of a don't-screw-your-coworkers guideline).
A company doesn't show it respects you or not by whether or not they adhere to that type of stuff, but by how they choose to wield their power over you, and how they deal with you on a day-to-day basis. If they are truthful, listen to your concerns, and are reasonably flexible with schedules when problems come up, I find that far more of an indicator of if they respect and value you as an employee than what they call the HR department.
What good is unemployment if you've already got a job on the line. Your going to stand in line for a weeks worth of pittance?
"Stand in line"? What is this, the 1900's? Most states let you file it all online. As for what you get - it will only be "a pittance" if your payrate was "a pittance". Typically, your benefits will be based on your previous payrate, so if you were being payed well, your UI checks will be good money (especially for doing nothing but filing a few forms). (Locally, the rate is 62-65% of your normal weekly pay, so if you'd been getting $1000/week, your UI would be ~ $620/week. Hardly a "pittance".)
The next best option is to hire someone else. And they will. Loyalty dosen't exist like it did 30 years ago
30 years ago? That was the 80's, the years of trickle-down economics, and the start of rampant fuck-the-employees-for-a-quick-buck trends and the lead-up to our current financial and employment clusterfuck. I think you meant 130 years ago.
although there are those special enclaves where loyalty is everything, good luck in finding one and greater luck in getting hired.
You'll have a hard time getting hired mostly because everybody who has a job there is unlikely to leave anytime soon.
If someone has invested a lot in training you and you jump ship to go somewhere else that could result in some burned bridges.
That depends on how soon after the training you jump ship. If you complete the training and immediately go elsewhere, yeah - they'll assume you were taking advantage of them. If you worked for a couple of years before jumping ship, that just means you felt underpaid or under-appreciated, or got offered a much better position elsewhere, which are the normal, more benign reasons for leaving.
I've seen sales people jump ship and take customers with them when they get a better deal. That rarely results in fond feelings.
That's because customers are a company asset, and quite often the most important one. Taking a company's customers with you when you leave is more harmful than if you walked out with a half the office equipment under your coat. Theft of property is single-instance harm (and often insured) - theft of a customer is a straight loss that keeps recurring every time that customer would have bought something.
The Feds had roughly four years to set up a reporting system and failed, which I think goes a long way to illustrating how not-"light in comparison" Obamacare is, relative to a simple voter ID bill.
The voter ID bill discourages the poor from voting, thus benefiting the rich. The Affordable Care Act benefits the poor more than the rich. Simple vs. complex isn't the issue here.
So we're not exactly comparing apples to apples here
I see what you did there.
With your i-eye ?
Yes, iDid.
Got a nice 300 ft 12Ga extention cord out of the deal. Why wouldn't you come back to get that? Although with the amount they charged me I pretty much paid for it anyway.
The reason why is because you're not going to dive 30 minutes out of your way to get a $20 extension cord, let alone a $5 hammer/wrench/screwdriver. Add in the fact that going back can make you late for the next appointment you have, and it's pretty much just not going to happen.