Lol, it is shocking how much of a moron you are, but not surprising.
"The fact is Lenovo was fined appropriately" that is a statement of opinion. Prove Lenovo was fine appropriately. But you can't. no one can because what is appropriate is a matter of opinion, it has always been, hell it's not even in dispute and court rulings are often written as such "in the opinion of this court" for example.
"and your efforts to halve that" How does a post on Slashdot constitute 'effort' in this setting? I did not file an amicus curiae and neither am I a witness for either side. I am just offering my opinion. You need to take a chill pill or something.
"based on a sub-legal argument" I have already proven that I am correct with a link to a real laywer. You are free to find a layer to rebut the lawyer in the link I claimed.
Your attempts to gaslight me are humorous though. A moron that can't even get simple facts straight trying to gaslight someone is always a hoot!
That would be because you are intentionally misconstruing what I am saying.
Let me help you out. There are people that harmed themselves, it is only my opinion is that the fine should have been cut in half, though I certainly don't have any problem with Lenovo losing all of that cash either.
My other opinion is that people should stop buying Lenovo entirely so that they go completely out of business as punishment for doing what they did and as a warning to other businesses that do the same.
You see, I care about what is right and proper. It is NOT right and proper for lawyers to get loads of cash like this though they definitely deserve to be compensated for their efforts. Additionally, these people deserved a total refund plus damages for those that purchase them in ignorance. Those that purchased after certain date deserve NOTHING because there is a reasonable expectation that they should know public and readily available information and cannot claim ignorance. The case is civil so preponderance is all that is necessary not proof beyond shadow of doubt despite what many morons think.
And why do you think I am gloating? What is there to gloat about here?
The assumption that I am a man huh? I am a man so your assumption is correct. I am definitely willing to admit when I am wrong. Now, tell me specifically what you think I am wrong about, and I will review your claim that tell you.
If I am wrong I will admit it, if I made a mistake that created confusion, I will correct what I meant. If I am not wrong, I will attempt to show you where YOU are mistaken.
"No, the question is which ones can you definitively prove.."
This is a class action lawsuit, a preponderance of evidence is what is required NOT definitive proof. How many of you morons are going to fill up the internet with your moronic ignorance? You must be one of those Sunday armchair lawyers that believes everything they see on TV and thinks they know far more than they do.
There is literally and internet full of people that DO KNOW that can help you. Go and listen to them and read some things!
Don't you know the different between, anecdotal, facts, evidence, and opinions? I guess not so let me break this down.
Me saying it should be 1/2 is my opinion. Me saying that people bought them after me telling them they were loaded with malware was anecdotal. Me not proving this to you means nothing, and my desire to not make any efforts to prove it are not tantamount to surrender either, it just means me proving anything to YOU is not worth the time or effort. I don't think you would be intellectually honest enough.
The fact that you are trying to construe my statements means you are the one without credibility.
"Lawyers have been consulted, your pseudo-argument lost big"
You are a titanic moron. You said that "...you are advocating above to halve the court fine based on a fallacious sub-legal argument, so yeah.""
The argument is not sub-legal. Whether that argument was successful in this case, if used, has ZERO bearing on this. But because you are a moron you cannot tell the difference. There have been more than enough cases where this "sub-legal" argument won a case. How are you not able to figure this out?
You were told to check with a layer to find out if the argument was valid, NOT if this argument applied to this case specifically. I am sure you know of that saying... better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? That is you. You have wasted enough effort setting up straw-man after straw-man here to put me on the defensive.
"You're asserting everyone who bought them was told that. You have yet to prove that. It's obviously not the case."
You have two problems. #1. You are assuming that I can somehow PROVE that my story is correct in any meaningful way. I am not in the habit of taking video evidence of people not following my advice. So NO I don't have to prove anything, the comment is anecdotal. Do you automatically believe people when they say they were assaulted? It's the same thing... anecdotal unless some evidence supporting the claims are presented. A busted nose is not good enough.
#2. People bought items from Best Buy, as in Best Buy was still selling these systems POST MEDIA STORM and still failed to notify customers that malware was KNOWN to be present upon the systems involved. Let me ask you this, if your local grocer was selling products known to contain salmonella would you want to sue them if they didn't pull that stock or warn you? Product sellers do have some incumbent responsibility here. This means that there is some culpability on Best Buy's behalf legally if someone presses the issue.
""when people "knowingly and voluntarily" buys a product they "legally" accepted something called "assumption of risk". -Sure, but there are still laws. They don't go away because of assumed risk generalizations."
You do know that once the "specifics" are out, that it is no longer "assumed risk generalizations" right? If you are going to argue your side you need to be more intelligent about it. The problem is specific in this case NOT general. When specific information is provide and you ACT upon that information POST reception you are "legally" considered informed! This means you LEGALLY accept the transfer of risk because you are informed.
Yes, people that did not know deserve compensation, but lets be honest... that only works for so long. Or do you think that it is okay for everyone to be walking around like mindless zombies trusting everything at face value?
"Anyhow you can say I'm lying but you are advocating above to halve the court fine based on a fallacious sub-legal argument, so yeah."
Go and talk to a lawyer, they argues this stuff all day long! You can even go and listen to one on youtube called Legal Eagle say the same thing.
It's okay to screw people over if you are willing to pay the price. Governments think of these things in the terms of compensation.
It would be better if the citizens thought of these things in the terms... we no longer buy from companies that are caught doing this so they go out of business and other businesses are not likely try this crap or risk losing their customers.
So if it's about sending a message... we sure sent the wrong one!
Wow... I guess if you are going to blatantly lie, make the lie a whopper.
Read what I posted again.
I said people were told that malware was present yet they still purchased them... when people "knowingly and voluntarily" buys a product they "legally" accepted something called "assumption of risk". This means they LOST their right "legally" to bitch about being spied on!
The fine should be cut in 1/2. I told a few customers one day in Best Buy that Lenovo was installing this trash on systems as well as using the mainboard to store this trash.
They still bought the things. There is a certain point where you can start blaming the so-called "victims" for being stupid.
I no longer feel sorry for anyone that buys lenovo, nintento, Sony, or from any other business that felt that screwing customers over was OKAY and good practice. I wish people understood that boycotts are effective, but since they are too lazy to participate in the economy properly I no longer feel sorry for them when they get screwed by big business.
"Capitalism is a wonderfull thing, it means the USA can get their shoes cheaper, but it also means companies will seek lower wage economies."
This is non-sequitur, capitalism has NOTHING to do with this problem as it can exist in any economic model. Capitalism simply uses the resources it is allowed to have by the Government, in this case, foreign workers. It is also not necessarily cheaper. The purpose is to drive down wages so that they can get the better talented Americans to work for less and businesses will definitely spend MORE for a short time to accomplish that goal for the same reason a business will operate at a loss in an attempt to destroy a competitor. I have seen a lot of terribly paid and highly paid foreign workers!
"There is no law to say USA wages must be higher. Competition is a double edged sword"
But there could be a law. Sometimes there is no telling how an action you take could wind up coming back against you with more force than than it took to start it. There are so many ways things can help or hinder your efforts. "Double edged" does it no justice.
There is ZERO reason to have an H-1B visa program like this for a developed nation. There are MORE than enough talented workers available and able to work these jobs and workers in the industry know it! It would however make sense for an under-developed nation to do this until their own workforce is able to compete.
Sure, but it is acceptable to question another human... it will not be acceptable to question the AI because expedience will prevent that. Imagine every person being charged challenging the algorithms?
Out of necessity the algorithms will become just as biased as people except classified by government as infallible.
This is well said... I love Microsoft because they are guaranteed to break... this is job security for me. I wish I had a dime for every time I had to say... "told you so". And despite that they never listen. They always think my requests to add backups or redundancy are too expensive and pie in the sky jackassery, but boy do they pucker the fuck up when they are losing phat stacks of cash during down time and spitting in my face every 5 minutes asking for updates while I am in the middle of analyzing logs and error events to track own what happened in the middle of working on a POC they are too cheap to dedicate a PM for. It can't be a coincidence that analyzing begins with "anal".
I wonder if management was supposed to be spelled "moronagement"?
The list of excuses are endless but the final destination is nothing more than... we need tools and excuses to take down anyone saying things the government does not like.
This is just more of the guilty until proven innocent mentality that humans just cannot resist foisting upon each other. Almost everyone I have ever met in life operates off two contradictory principles... automatic innocence or blind eye for those they like AND automatic guilt or punishment for those they hate.
People often forget that every power they give their beloved politicians is power they ALSO give to their enemies and then they have the gall to act indignant when they are turned against them!
If you think you can run to the cloud and get better service you are mistaken. Like playing musical chairs you only move the problems and goal posts around.
There is no end to Management willing to pay through the nose for the promise of "Cloud" and following the advice of the providers along the way with little question, but when you have to build it on-prem you have to justify every blithering dollar you ask to spend and then have to face them trying to screw up your project plans with scope creep and "know-it-all" management interference and second guessing junior idiots.
In short, your shit is going offline... you want that reduced? Find quality IT pros and fucking pay them what they are worth and stop promoting high quality pro's to justify giving them a higher salary. If you need too... pay a helpdesk worker that gets their fucking shit done twice what you pay the others. It's that simple and stay the fuck out of their way... they are the professionals... not the fucking management. Managements ONLY job should be to make sure that money is wisely spent by make sure the teams are aware of talent and licenses product are not unnecessarily duplicated and that the nerds or silo managers are not busy fighting like children over stupid shit between themselves or other teams. Those are two huge problems but get very little attention in many businesses.
"The following alt-right false news site pretends the rise has been pretty steady for a century, which because of the complete lack of correlation with CO2 emissions is of course proven a lie by scientific consensus."
You are being deceitful. I said "correlation does not equal causation" this by its very virtue is a sentence that agrees there is correlation, it is not any form of an accusation that there is a lack of correlation, as you so falsely advance!
You also do science a disservice by advancing the notion that a "consensus" is a truth that proves something a lie. There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat and that it was at the center of the Universe, there also used to be a consensus that we would never travel faster than sound. It is people just like you that laughed at the Scholars, now people like you "pretend" they are scholars to laugh at those that do not parrot your new "Church of Science" dogma.
It is people like you that have ran many people of the different faiths away from Science because instead of treating science like science, you use it instead as a bible to bash people over the head with a bunch of ignorance parading around like it's science!
Consensus is not fact, Consensus is not proof that something is a lie. A consensus is "general agreement" or "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". Grab a dictionary and check your words next time!
That is data over time... I want the data that shows the rate of change from their "predicted" vs "reality" along with the "prediction data".
I don't dispute that sea levels are changing in either direction, that is just data. I want a smoking gun, the data that shows clearly that...
#1. Global Warming is undeniably caused by "certain gasses" and their proposed links to human activities. Right now there is a logical breakdown with correlation does not equal causation dilemma. Are these gasses rising because temp is rising or are temps rising because these gasses are rising? What if its all coincidence as well? Water vapor is empirically provable because everyone experiences less heat when the clouds block the sun, is there a threshold for how effective this becomes at certain ratios? Very little carbon is actually needed create steel which is considerably stronger than iron on it's own. #2. A "real solution" to the problem and NOT a money based one. I know that politics cannot be separated from the process but as long as the solution is to just TAX people based on how much "carbon" they use it will not solve the problem. It might just cause more economic strife or trouble like how Paris is getting into now.
I read a report where America is actually ahead of several countries in Carbon reduction even though we backed out of the Paris agreements while the nations that stayed in are not doing as well in their reduction targets. If the solution is just to make people pay more... then they are just going to pay more. Nothing much is really going to change over the long term. People are creative at how we can cheat systems... which is why there are practically more laws on the books than there are people alive!
Additionally, it might be more effective to find ways to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere and use them for other applications. I hear some news on those front but they all seem experimental for now.
The best way to solve any problem is to turn it into a money generating enterprise instead of a taxation one. There is a way to do it and we need to find it.
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Science has become an Institutionalized Church just like what has happened to the religions. Any facts or data that calls a certain agenda into question becomes marginalized.
The source of Tyranny is always from the people, places, or ideas you are NOT allowed to criticize or question and no matter how many facts are involved.
According to this journal only 52% of Climate Scientists, Meteorologists and Atmospheric Scientists believe that GW is mostly human. 10% believe it is a combination of humans and natural, 5% natural 20% believe data is insufficient to make the call, 1% don't know the cause, 7% do not sure if GW is happening, & 4% believe that GW is not happening at all.
This results in 2/3rds of Scientists believing that GW is at least happening with only a little over 1/2 of them being sure it is caused by Human efforts with just under 1/2 of those that believe GW is happening as being either a mix of human and natural or just natural.
And judging by Sciences past, I am going to stay suspicious. I don't "disbelieve" that GW is happening that seems fairly clear, but I definitely "disbelieve" these projections as I have yet to see a single one come true and just like in this article there is "conveniently" no data attached. I want a smoking gun folks, not more bluster, fear mongering, or chatter that does not have links to data.
I know many of you have valid complaints about this system but this is how these problems are solved when you get government involve. This is not an anti-government rant either. There are some things you need government to solve and there are things that you don't need government to solve. This problem is not a problem you need government to solve.
For everyone saying Free-Market is dead, this is its replacement. The gerrymandering of resources and products from behind the scenes using slight of hand and and a couple of rhetorical platitudes. The Free-Market is not just something this generation of Americans hate, but also something that has been long killed off by the previous generation that "espoused" it.
No business or government likes or wants a free-market because they have little to no control in them. They have to compete with the choices that consumers are making and in order to gain that control, they will create a problem that does not exist, but matches closely enough with one to make it appear valid. The same strategy of convincing citizens that governments need to build massive armies to protect them only to use them as a police force is the same strategy here. Make a NON problem up so that control or a gimmick can be introduced to remove liberty or suppress consumers/citizens in some way that is not immediately apparent.
There is no enterprise as industrious as Government when it comes to solving problems that never existed. America has most definitely either become or is headlong into being an Oligarchy. I cannot think of a single area of life from Taxes to Food where a business has not sweet talked (bribed) government into creating a regulation that serves them instead of protecting the citizen and this "deal" is just one more example of the thousands of examples that are out there.
Lets NOW get regulations put it, while WE have a lot of say and clout and while we have a lot of politicians we can buy off to help make sure that regulations benefit US more AND in a way that hurts other startups.
This business is as wrote as history. When you are small, you hate regs because they cause you pain... when you are BIG, you like regs because you can buy a few of them that help keep your business either directly or at least quasi blessed by one or more of the government agencies. And what is wrong with having the ear of government? And like the TARP bailouts... getting to big to fail is an insurance policy all its own! Government will happily put businesses on welfare too!
"You want them to develop smash titles like Super Mario and give them for free?"
Letting me play it at no "direct" cost to myself does not make it "free" in the way that you imply. Nintendo recoups that cost through advertising and data collection. I am just saying that if I give them my own money that I do not want them to also monetize me in other ways.
"There's nothing wrong with paying for entertainment."
Point out where I stated that paying for entertainment was wrong?
"Every company has done dick moves of course, and I don't necessarily agree with everything Nintendo does; but at some point people are just acting like the self-entitled pricks that they have shown themselves to be."
Name calling, many consider this to mean that you have already lost the argument. It is simple, if you do business with a company that makes these "dick moves" then what does that say about you? Asking a company to stop being "dicks" or making "dick moves" is hardly enough to accuse people of being self entitled pricks, but you seem to be unable to figure this out.
"I have nothing against people hacking these systems and doing what they're doing."
Seems to me that you apparently do have something against these people according to what you are saying.
"There's something to be said about the ingenuity of some of these work-arounds and just the knowledge some of these folks have"
Agree...
"But I have no sympathy for them when Nintendo turns around and does something about it either. "
even when what they do about it is more negative than positive? Why are you even commenting? If all is fair then what do you seek to gain by even bothering a comment?
"The only people who truly complain are the kids who want everything for free."
Ah, the old "no true Scotsman" fallacy combined with a provably wrong "lie" and "gate-keeping". Nice "triple-play" there fellow human.
When you play the game like Nintendo does it, then you breed piracy. Games that take years to drop in price, exclusive content, rigorous control over the environment, total disrespect of their customers.
There are many reasons to break software free of the DRM grips of these kinds of businesses. If nintendo wants to provide me a walled garden with exclusive content and watch what I do, then they need to give it to me for free. I am not going to pay for this type treatment.
I don't feel sorry for consumers of Nintendo products, they have more than proven who and what kind of business they are. They have no honor!
1 out of 4 are asked to commit fraud. 2 our of 4 are "expected" to commit fraud without being asked. 1 out of 4 are actually trying to get at some form of truth.
Statistics are always biased by their sample sizes, and criteria.
There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
"No you can take your false equivalence and shove it."
Careful, don't let your bigotry rat you out in the first sentence.
"I've always thought political parties were a bad idea, and nobody is a saint, but the degree of lying and cheating that people in the current US republican party will stoop to is unacceptable in a civil society."
Then welcome to agreeing to me, why is the way that I said it not acceptable to you? And since you seem to agree with me then why are you telling me to shove it?
"Your one example shows your argument is hollow. The GOP was all for repealing the ACA because it sounds good in a campaign slogan but didn't do it because they have no real alternative policy, just talking points."
I literally said that the Republican promises to complain for ACA repeal were empty... you are literally AGREEING WITH ME! Why are you hostile? And if my argument was hostile then double for yours!
"Then you say some random squishy crap about Obama not sticking to "hope and change". Nothing concrete."
Lets see, the "increased" prosecution of whistles blowers beyond that of Bush... a bunch of moth breathing about shutting down gitmo... total support of the Patriot Act and Domestic Surveillance programs...
"but the ACA was a concrete improvement to the status quo that could be put into law at the time despite an obstructionist opposition party."
That is your opinion... meanwhile the poor members of my family have WORSE health care now than before ACA. So apparently you lie just as much as Obama... if you like your doctor you can keep them. Some people benefit, others suffer, both sides cherry pick the the data that supports their bullshit claims and you obviously are busy buying the baloney you like the taste of. When it is all said and done the ACA or whatever form it next takes will consolidate more power into the head of the ruling elite and you will happy give them that power in a vain attempt to get what you 'think' you want.
"Your claim that both of these are parties saying one thing and doing another is simply false equivalence."
Just admit you are a democrat and like the other poster say that you cannot be held to the impossible standard of not being a hypocrite. You are not prepared to follow any rules and you want blame the other side for doing what you yourself are doing.
Here is a hint... as long as you think you are free to break the rules, they are going to think the same. Stop breaking the rules, follow the constitution and stop trying to force others through force of law to live like you think they should. It was not good when the Christians did it, it will not be good when you try it either.
Wait, asking people to stop being hypocritical is an impossible standard?
Hypocrisy is one of the worse human traits possible next to murder. Why is it okay for YOU to demand people to abide by the Constitution but it is not okay for THEM to demand the same of you because... well it is an impossible standard? Listen to how insane that sounds!
Rules are there for a reason... if you think that following them is an impossible standard than you advocate for war, because now that you have advertised that you do not intend to follow any rules only violence will be enough to stop you. You now have no right to complain to anyone when they too ignore the rules in efforts to stop you!
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, it is shocking how much of a moron you are, but not surprising.
"The fact is Lenovo was fined appropriately" that is a statement of opinion. Prove Lenovo was fine appropriately. But you can't. no one can because what is appropriate is a matter of opinion, it has always been, hell it's not even in dispute and court rulings are often written as such "in the opinion of this court" for example.
"and your efforts to halve that" How does a post on Slashdot constitute 'effort' in this setting? I did not file an amicus curiae and neither am I a witness for either side. I am just offering my opinion. You need to take a chill pill or something.
"based on a sub-legal argument" I have already proven that I am correct with a link to a real laywer. You are free to find a layer to rebut the lawyer in the link I claimed.
Your attempts to gaslight me are humorous though. A moron that can't even get simple facts straight trying to gaslight someone is always a hoot!
That would be because you are intentionally misconstruing what I am saying.
Let me help you out. There are people that harmed themselves, it is only my opinion is that the fine should have been cut in half, though I certainly don't have any problem with Lenovo losing all of that cash either.
My other opinion is that people should stop buying Lenovo entirely so that they go completely out of business as punishment for doing what they did and as a warning to other businesses that do the same.
You see, I care about what is right and proper. It is NOT right and proper for lawyers to get loads of cash like this though they definitely deserve to be compensated for their efforts. Additionally, these people deserved a total refund plus damages for those that purchase them in ignorance. Those that purchased after certain date deserve NOTHING because there is a reasonable expectation that they should know public and readily available information and cannot claim ignorance. The case is civil so preponderance is all that is necessary not proof beyond shadow of doubt despite what many morons think.
And why do you think I am gloating? What is there to gloat about here?
The assumption that I am a man huh? I am a man so your assumption is correct. I am definitely willing to admit when I am wrong. Now, tell me specifically what you think I am wrong about, and I will review your claim that tell you.
If I am wrong I will admit it, if I made a mistake that created confusion, I will correct what I meant. If I am not wrong, I will attempt to show you where YOU are mistaken.
Your turn! Show me where I am wrong.
"No, the question is which ones can you definitively prove.."
This is a class action lawsuit, a preponderance of evidence is what is required NOT definitive proof. How many of you morons are going to fill up the internet with your moronic ignorance? You must be one of those Sunday armchair lawyers that believes everything they see on TV and thinks they know far more than they do.
There is literally and internet full of people that DO KNOW that can help you. Go and listen to them and read some things!
Don't you know the different between, anecdotal, facts, evidence, and opinions? I guess not so let me break this down.
Me saying it should be 1/2 is my opinion.
Me saying that people bought them after me telling them they were loaded with malware was anecdotal.
Me not proving this to you means nothing, and my desire to not make any efforts to prove it are not tantamount to surrender either, it just means me proving anything to YOU is not worth the time or effort. I don't think you would be intellectually honest enough.
The fact that you are trying to construe my statements means you are the one without credibility.
"Lawyers have been consulted, your pseudo-argument lost big"
You are a titanic moron. You said that "...you are advocating above to halve the court fine based on a fallacious sub-legal argument, so yeah.""
The argument is not sub-legal. Whether that argument was successful in this case, if used, has ZERO bearing on this. But because you are a moron you cannot tell the difference. There have been more than enough cases where this "sub-legal" argument won a case. How are you not able to figure this out?
You were told to check with a layer to find out if the argument was valid, NOT if this argument applied to this case specifically. I am sure you know of that saying... better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt? That is you. You have wasted enough effort setting up straw-man after straw-man here to put me on the defensive.
"You're asserting everyone who bought them was told that. You have yet to prove that. It's obviously not the case."
You have two problems.
#1. You are assuming that I can somehow PROVE that my story is correct in any meaningful way. I am not in the habit of taking video evidence of people not following my advice. So NO I don't have to prove anything, the comment is anecdotal. Do you automatically believe people when they say they were assaulted? It's the same thing... anecdotal unless some evidence supporting the claims are presented. A busted nose is not good enough.
#2. People bought items from Best Buy, as in Best Buy was still selling these systems POST MEDIA STORM and still failed to notify customers that malware was KNOWN to be present upon the systems involved. Let me ask you this, if your local grocer was selling products known to contain salmonella would you want to sue them if they didn't pull that stock or warn you? Product sellers do have some incumbent responsibility here. This means that there is some culpability on Best Buy's behalf legally if someone presses the issue.
""when people "knowingly and voluntarily" buys a product they "legally" accepted something called "assumption of risk". -Sure, but there are still laws. They don't go away because of assumed risk generalizations."
You do know that once the "specifics" are out, that it is no longer "assumed risk generalizations" right? If you are going to argue your side you need to be more intelligent about it. The problem is specific in this case NOT general. When specific information is provide and you ACT upon that information POST reception you are "legally" considered informed! This means you LEGALLY accept the transfer of risk because you are informed.
Yes, people that did not know deserve compensation, but lets be honest... that only works for so long. Or do you think that it is okay for everyone to be walking around like mindless zombies trusting everything at face value?
"Anyhow you can say I'm lying but you are advocating above to halve the court fine based on a fallacious sub-legal argument, so yeah."
Go and talk to a lawyer, they argues this stuff all day long! You can even go and listen to one on youtube called Legal Eagle say the same thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
So if you disagree with a REAL lawyer there is your chance to challenge one!
Yes, we all got the message.
It's okay to screw people over if you are willing to pay the price. Governments think of these things in the terms of compensation.
It would be better if the citizens thought of these things in the terms... we no longer buy from companies that are caught doing this so they go out of business and other businesses are not likely try this crap or risk losing their customers.
So if it's about sending a message... we sure sent the wrong one!
Wow... I guess if you are going to blatantly lie, make the lie a whopper.
Read what I posted again.
I said people were told that malware was present yet they still purchased them... when people "knowingly and voluntarily" buys a product they "legally" accepted something called "assumption of risk". This means they LOST their right "legally" to bitch about being spied on!
The fine should be cut in 1/2. I told a few customers one day in Best Buy that Lenovo was installing this trash on systems as well as using the mainboard to store this trash.
They still bought the things. There is a certain point where you can start blaming the so-called "victims" for being stupid.
I no longer feel sorry for anyone that buys lenovo, nintento, Sony, or from any other business that felt that screwing customers over was OKAY and good practice. I wish people understood that boycotts are effective, but since they are too lazy to participate in the economy properly I no longer feel sorry for them when they get screwed by big business.
"Capitalism is a wonderfull thing, it means the USA can get their shoes cheaper, but it also means companies will seek lower wage economies."
This is non-sequitur, capitalism has NOTHING to do with this problem as it can exist in any economic model. Capitalism simply uses the resources it is allowed to have by the Government, in this case, foreign workers. It is also not necessarily cheaper. The purpose is to drive down wages so that they can get the better talented Americans to work for less and businesses will definitely spend MORE for a short time to accomplish that goal for the same reason a business will operate at a loss in an attempt to destroy a competitor. I have seen a lot of terribly paid and highly paid foreign workers!
"There is no law to say USA wages must be higher. Competition is a double edged sword"
But there could be a law. Sometimes there is no telling how an action you take could wind up coming back against you with more force than than it took to start it. There are so many ways things can help or hinder your efforts. "Double edged" does it no justice.
There is ZERO reason to have an H-1B visa program like this for a developed nation. There are MORE than enough talented workers available and able to work these jobs and workers in the industry know it! It would however make sense for an under-developed nation to do this until their own workforce is able to compete.
Sure, but it is acceptable to question another human... it will not be acceptable to question the AI because expedience will prevent that. Imagine every person being charged challenging the algorithms?
Out of necessity the algorithms will become just as biased as people except classified by government as infallible.
This is well said... I love Microsoft because they are guaranteed to break... this is job security for me. I wish I had a dime for every time I had to say... "told you so". And despite that they never listen. They always think my requests to add backups or redundancy are too expensive and pie in the sky jackassery, but boy do they pucker the fuck up when they are losing phat stacks of cash during down time and spitting in my face every 5 minutes asking for updates while I am in the middle of analyzing logs and error events to track own what happened in the middle of working on a POC they are too cheap to dedicate a PM for. It can't be a coincidence that analyzing begins with "anal".
I wonder if management was supposed to be spelled "moronagement"?
The list of excuses are endless but the final destination is nothing more than... we need tools and excuses to take down anyone saying things the government does not like.
This is just more of the guilty until proven innocent mentality that humans just cannot resist foisting upon each other. Almost everyone I have ever met in life operates off two contradictory principles... automatic innocence or blind eye for those they like AND automatic guilt or punishment for those they hate.
People often forget that every power they give their beloved politicians is power they ALSO give to their enemies and then they have the gall to act indignant when they are turned against them!
Choose how you want to run IT.
If you think you can run to the cloud and get better service you are mistaken. Like playing musical chairs you only move the problems and goal posts around.
There is no end to Management willing to pay through the nose for the promise of "Cloud" and following the advice of the providers along the way with little question, but when you have to build it on-prem you have to justify every blithering dollar you ask to spend and then have to face them trying to screw up your project plans with scope creep and "know-it-all" management interference and second guessing junior idiots.
In short, your shit is going offline... you want that reduced? Find quality IT pros and fucking pay them what they are worth and stop promoting high quality pro's to justify giving them a higher salary. If you need too... pay a helpdesk worker that gets their fucking shit done twice what you pay the others. It's that simple and stay the fuck out of their way... they are the professionals... not the fucking management. Managements ONLY job should be to make sure that money is wisely spent by make sure the teams are aware of talent and licenses product are not unnecessarily duplicated and that the nerds or silo managers are not busy fighting like children over stupid shit between themselves or other teams. Those are two huge problems but get very little attention in many businesses.
"The following alt-right false news site pretends the rise has been pretty steady for a century, which because of the complete lack of correlation with CO2 emissions is of course proven a lie by scientific consensus."
You are being deceitful. I said "correlation does not equal causation" this by its very virtue is a sentence that agrees there is correlation, it is not any form of an accusation that there is a lack of correlation, as you so falsely advance!
You also do science a disservice by advancing the notion that a "consensus" is a truth that proves something a lie. There used to be a "scientific consensus" that the Earth was flat and that it was at the center of the Universe, there also used to be a consensus that we would never travel faster than sound. It is people just like you that laughed at the Scholars, now people like you "pretend" they are scholars to laugh at those that do not parrot your new "Church of Science" dogma.
It is people like you that have ran many people of the different faiths away from Science because instead of treating science like science, you use it instead as a bible to bash people over the head with a bunch of ignorance parading around like it's science!
Consensus is not fact, Consensus is not proof that something is a lie. A consensus is "general agreement" or "the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned". Grab a dictionary and check your words next time!
You need to read my post again. my numbers are sourced exactly from that graph, if I am ignorant then you are a moron.
Ignorance can be easily fixed by learning, the question is how to fix a moron.
That is data over time... I want the data that shows the rate of change from their "predicted" vs "reality" along with the "prediction data".
I don't dispute that sea levels are changing in either direction, that is just data. I want a smoking gun, the data that shows clearly that...
#1. Global Warming is undeniably caused by "certain gasses" and their proposed links to human activities. Right now there is a logical breakdown with correlation does not equal causation dilemma. Are these gasses rising because temp is rising or are temps rising because these gasses are rising? What if its all coincidence as well? Water vapor is empirically provable because everyone experiences less heat when the clouds block the sun, is there a threshold for how effective this becomes at certain ratios? Very little carbon is actually needed create steel which is considerably stronger than iron on it's own.
#2. A "real solution" to the problem and NOT a money based one. I know that politics cannot be separated from the process but as long as the solution is to just TAX people based on how much "carbon" they use it will not solve the problem. It might just cause more economic strife or trouble like how Paris is getting into now.
I read a report where America is actually ahead of several countries in Carbon reduction even though we backed out of the Paris agreements while the nations that stayed in are not doing as well in their reduction targets. If the solution is just to make people pay more... then they are just going to pay more. Nothing much is really going to change over the long term. People are creative at how we can cheat systems... which is why there are practically more laws on the books than there are people alive!
Additionally, it might be more effective to find ways to suck the carbon out of the atmosphere and use them for other applications. I hear some news on those front but they all seem experimental for now.
The best way to solve any problem is to turn it into a money generating enterprise instead of a taxation one. There is a way to do it and we need to find it.
I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?
The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.
Science has become an Institutionalized Church just like what has happened to the religions. Any facts or data that calls a certain agenda into question becomes marginalized.
The source of Tyranny is always from the people, places, or ideas you are NOT allowed to criticize or question and no matter how many facts are involved.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/d...
According to this journal only 52% of Climate Scientists, Meteorologists and Atmospheric Scientists believe that GW is mostly human. 10% believe it is a combination of humans and natural, 5% natural 20% believe data is insufficient to make the call, 1% don't know the cause, 7% do not sure if GW is happening, & 4% believe that GW is not happening at all.
This results in 2/3rds of Scientists believing that GW is at least happening with only a little over 1/2 of them being sure it is caused by Human efforts with just under 1/2 of those that believe GW is happening as being either a mix of human and natural or just natural.
And judging by Sciences past, I am going to stay suspicious. I don't "disbelieve" that GW is happening that seems fairly clear, but I definitely "disbelieve" these projections as I have yet to see a single one come true and just like in this article there is "conveniently" no data attached. I want a smoking gun folks, not more bluster, fear mongering, or chatter that does not have links to data.
I know many of you have valid complaints about this system but this is how these problems are solved when you get government involve. This is not an anti-government rant either. There are some things you need government to solve and there are things that you don't need government to solve. This problem is not a problem you need government to solve.
For everyone saying Free-Market is dead, this is its replacement. The gerrymandering of resources and products from behind the scenes using slight of hand and and a couple of rhetorical platitudes. The Free-Market is not just something this generation of Americans hate, but also something that has been long killed off by the previous generation that "espoused" it.
No business or government likes or wants a free-market because they have little to no control in them. They have to compete with the choices that consumers are making and in order to gain that control, they will create a problem that does not exist, but matches closely enough with one to make it appear valid. The same strategy of convincing citizens that governments need to build massive armies to protect them only to use them as a police force is the same strategy here. Make a NON problem up so that control or a gimmick can be introduced to remove liberty or suppress consumers/citizens in some way that is not immediately apparent.
There is no enterprise as industrious as Government when it comes to solving problems that never existed. America has most definitely either become or is headlong into being an Oligarchy. I cannot think of a single area of life from Taxes to Food where a business has not sweet talked (bribed) government into creating a regulation that serves them instead of protecting the citizen and this "deal" is just one more example of the thousands of examples that are out there.
Lets NOW get regulations put it, while WE have a lot of say and clout and while we have a lot of politicians we can buy off to help make sure that regulations benefit US more AND in a way that hurts other startups.
This business is as wrote as history. When you are small, you hate regs because they cause you pain... when you are BIG, you like regs because you can buy a few of them that help keep your business either directly or at least quasi blessed by one or more of the government agencies. And what is wrong with having the ear of government? And like the TARP bailouts... getting to big to fail is an insurance policy all its own! Government will happily put businesses on welfare too!
your rant was a non-sequitur.
Read what I said again.
"You want them to develop smash titles like Super Mario and give them for free?"
Letting me play it at no "direct" cost to myself does not make it "free" in the way that you imply. Nintendo recoups that cost through advertising and data collection. I am just saying that if I give them my own money that I do not want them to also monetize me in other ways.
"There's nothing wrong with paying for entertainment."
Point out where I stated that paying for entertainment was wrong?
"Every company has done dick moves of course, and I don't necessarily agree with everything Nintendo does; but at some point people are just acting like the self-entitled pricks that they have shown themselves to be."
Name calling, many consider this to mean that you have already lost the argument. It is simple, if you do business with a company that makes these "dick moves" then what does that say about you? Asking a company to stop being "dicks" or making "dick moves" is hardly enough to accuse people of being self entitled pricks, but you seem to be unable to figure this out.
"I have nothing against people hacking these systems and doing what they're doing."
Seems to me that you apparently do have something against these people according to what you are saying.
"There's something to be said about the ingenuity of some of these work-arounds and just the knowledge some of these folks have"
Agree...
"But I have no sympathy for them when Nintendo turns around and does something about it either. "
even when what they do about it is more negative than positive? Why are you even commenting? If all is fair then what do you seek to gain by even bothering a comment?
"The only people who truly complain are the kids who want everything for free."
Ah, the old "no true Scotsman" fallacy combined with a provably wrong "lie" and "gate-keeping". Nice "triple-play" there fellow human.
When you play the game like Nintendo does it, then you breed piracy. Games that take years to drop in price, exclusive content, rigorous control over the environment, total disrespect of their customers.
There are many reasons to break software free of the DRM grips of these kinds of businesses. If nintendo wants to provide me a walled garden with exclusive content and watch what I do, then they need to give it to me for free. I am not going to pay for this type treatment.
I don't feel sorry for consumers of Nintendo products, they have more than proven who and what kind of business they are. They have no honor!
1 out of 4 are asked to commit fraud.
2 our of 4 are "expected" to commit fraud without being asked.
1 out of 4 are actually trying to get at some form of truth.
Statistics are always biased by their sample sizes, and criteria.
There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics.
"No you can take your false equivalence and shove it."
Careful, don't let your bigotry rat you out in the first sentence.
"I've always thought political parties were a bad idea, and nobody is a saint, but the degree of lying and cheating that people in the current US republican party will stoop to is unacceptable in a civil society."
Then welcome to agreeing to me, why is the way that I said it not acceptable to you? And since you seem to agree with me then why are you telling me to shove it?
"Your one example shows your argument is hollow. The GOP was all for repealing the ACA because it sounds good in a campaign slogan but didn't do it because they have no real alternative policy, just talking points."
I literally said that the Republican promises to complain for ACA repeal were empty... you are literally AGREEING WITH ME! Why are you hostile? And if my argument was hostile then double for yours!
"Then you say some random squishy crap about Obama not sticking to "hope and change". Nothing concrete."
Lets see, the "increased" prosecution of whistles blowers beyond that of Bush... a bunch of moth breathing about shutting down gitmo... total support of the Patriot Act and Domestic Surveillance programs...
"but the ACA was a concrete improvement to the status quo that could be put into law at the time despite an obstructionist opposition party."
That is your opinion... meanwhile the poor members of my family have WORSE health care now than before ACA. So apparently you lie just as much as Obama... if you like your doctor you can keep them. Some people benefit, others suffer, both sides cherry pick the the data that supports their bullshit claims and you obviously are busy buying the baloney you like the taste of. When it is all said and done the ACA or whatever form it next takes will consolidate more power into the head of the ruling elite and you will happy give them that power in a vain attempt to get what you 'think' you want.
"Your claim that both of these are parties saying one thing and doing another is simply false equivalence."
Just admit you are a democrat and like the other poster say that you cannot be held to the impossible standard of not being a hypocrite. You are not prepared to follow any rules and you want blame the other side for doing what you yourself are doing.
Here is a hint... as long as you think you are free to break the rules, they are going to think the same. Stop breaking the rules, follow the constitution and stop trying to force others through force of law to live like you think they should. It was not good when the Christians did it, it will not be good when you try it either.
Wait, asking people to stop being hypocritical is an impossible standard?
Hypocrisy is one of the worse human traits possible next to murder. Why is it okay for YOU to demand people to abide by the Constitution but it is not okay for THEM to demand the same of you because... well it is an impossible standard? Listen to how insane that sounds!
Rules are there for a reason... if you think that following them is an impossible standard than you advocate for war, because now that you have advertised that you do not intend to follow any rules only violence will be enough to stop you. You now have no right to complain to anyone when they too ignore the rules in efforts to stop you!