I wonder at what times Firefox would act as a Tor node? Only while private browsing is enabled, a private window is open, at all times, or never (if that is possible, it's been a while)? I figure that it won't be an exit node by default, but it would still be unfortunate if unsuspecting users suddenly saw their data usage increase.
The first link: "a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he willfully fails to provide support which he can provide and which he knows he is legally obliged to provide to a spouse, child or other dependent." (emphasis mine) - This doesn't describe any particular case or instance of this happening, just a review of the law.
Second link: Again, "noting that Schochet could have filed a request for a separate hearing to analyze his ability to pay." For whatever reason, he did not - my guess is that he still had the ability to pay, with a bunch of money in his bank account, stocks held, etc. Portfolio managers tend to be the kind of person to have a bunch of assets.
Third link: This is the same guy as in the second link, adding that his salary was $1M a year.
So yeah, you've cited one guy who decided not to get his ability to pay re-evaluated, and then went to jail because, on the books, he had the ability to pay. If he really couldn't pay, wouldn't he rather pursue that option than spend time in jail?
Man, you never been poor, have you? When you suddenly got to pay $80 because your lender shut off your car because you *couldn't afford* payments, there's no way in hell you can just absorb that cost and keep rolling.
My point is that bobbied was blaming the celebrities for trusting a password to secure photos, which doesn't actually make any sense of him. Perhaps it wasn't clear in my post, but I also blame Apple for allowing such an obvious security hole.
... What's the cost to take a taxi from and to work? Say your commute is 10 miles - that's gonna be near $75 out of your pocket for a round trip, and you're not likely to even make that much money back from your day's work.
It's predatory lending because it's deliberately designed to extract money from people who cannot afford the premiums, then repossess the car and sell it again.
It's dangerous because it takes advantage of people who are in a really shitty situation, by offering them a terrible option that appears to be just-barely workable. The thinking is basically: "Fuck, I need a car, like, right now, because my old one broke and I need to get to work next week. Okay, this guy's offering me a car that runs and drives, I don't have to worry about the transmission dying tomorrow, for $Y/month. If I get 30 hours a week, and groceries cost $X... okay, this'll be painful for a little while, but once Bill gets that job with his cousin, it'll be more manageable." Then, two months later, that job prospect fell through, or your boss cuts your hours down to 25, and Suzie's sick and needs to see the doctor. You miss a payment, your car gets shut off, and you can't get to work.
It's basically gambling that you won't have any unforseen expenses, except the only other option is watching your money slowly drain away.
Very poor people can often subsist on SNAP benefits, right? We recognize that starving to death isn't something we should allow.
What if, instead of SNAP, grocery stores said "Oh, you don't have the money right now? Well, that's okay, you just have to pay me at a 30% interest rate for the groceries you buy this week, financed over a year or so." And if you're late on your payment, they come to your house, empty your cupboards, and refuse to let you buy more food from them.
Similarly, it's pretty fucking awful of them to disable your car for one missed payment - how you gonna get to work when one morning your car just doesn't start? Maybe you can take that day off and borrow a friend's car tomorrow, but payday's still a week and a half away. It'll be real cool explaining to your kids that you don't have money to buy food because you got fired for not getting to work - because you didn't have money.
Predatory loans are, plain and simple, exploiting the poor. This is just the latest in a terrible series of unethical enforcement methods.
Good, chivalry is as outdated as the time from which it sprang. These bizarre, gender-based rules of conduct have been long superseded by "don't be a fucking dick, jesus."
You get your home assessed for the purposes of determining the value of your property, including the structures you have on it. A pool increases the value, and hence, your property tax.
Yeah, those stupid celebrities. Why, I'll bet they keep their money in the bank, protected only by a PIN or online password! And park their cars *outside* some times, where anyone passing by could steal it. Heck, even their homes and loved ones are protected by little more than a simple series of alarm/gate codes. They're *definitely* primarily responsible for when criminals target them for deliberate harm.
Oh, individual humans, yeah, they're important. You shouldn't murder people.
But is humanity important? Is the last human alive ethically obligated to clone themselves to perpetuate the species? Or is it okay if, when they dies, humanity dies with them? That's the question I was trying to get at.
Slashdot Mirror
Bottom left one, here:
https://sathyasaibaba.files.wo...
What, for two whole weeks? That's definitely a pragmatic solution. You gonna cover their room & board, plus lost pay, while you're at it?
Cool, thanks for letting me know! I haven't used Tor in a few years, now, so my memory is rusty.
I wonder at what times Firefox would act as a Tor node? Only while private browsing is enabled, a private window is open, at all times, or never (if that is possible, it's been a while)? I figure that it won't be an exit node by default, but it would still be unfortunate if unsuspecting users suddenly saw their data usage increase.
The first link:
"a person commits a crime of the fourth degree if he willfully fails to provide support which he can provide and which he knows he is legally obliged to provide to a spouse, child or other dependent." (emphasis mine) - This doesn't describe any particular case or instance of this happening, just a review of the law.
Second link:
Again, "noting that Schochet could have filed a request for a separate hearing to analyze his ability to pay." For whatever reason, he did not - my guess is that he still had the ability to pay, with a bunch of money in his bank account, stocks held, etc. Portfolio managers tend to be the kind of person to have a bunch of assets.
Third link:
This is the same guy as in the second link, adding that his salary was $1M a year.
So yeah, you've cited one guy who decided not to get his ability to pay re-evaluated, and then went to jail because, on the books, he had the ability to pay. If he really couldn't pay, wouldn't he rather pursue that option than spend time in jail?
Yes, Slashdot is known to complain that male scientists are unattractive whenever a picture is posted Totally the same.
Military prowess... Because all of our pilots and passengers are trained armed soldiers, I guess.
Yes, sweetheart, that's if you have the ability to pay. Which is contempt of court.
Non-payment due to lack of funds is very different than non payment because you're just some asshole.
Man, you never been poor, have you? When you suddenly got to pay $80 because your lender shut off your car because you *couldn't afford* payments, there's no way in hell you can just absorb that cost and keep rolling.
Amortized my ass.
My point is that bobbied was blaming the celebrities for trusting a password to secure photos, which doesn't actually make any sense of him. Perhaps it wasn't clear in my post, but I also blame Apple for allowing such an obvious security hole.
Yes, that is what I'm getting at. OP is blaming the celebrities for Apple allowing brute force attacks.
...
What's the cost to take a taxi from and to work? Say your commute is 10 miles - that's gonna be near $75 out of your pocket for a round trip, and you're not likely to even make that much money back from your day's work.
It's predatory lending because it's deliberately designed to extract money from people who cannot afford the premiums, then repossess the car and sell it again.
It's dangerous because it takes advantage of people who are in a really shitty situation, by offering them a terrible option that appears to be just-barely workable. The thinking is basically: "Fuck, I need a car, like, right now, because my old one broke and I need to get to work next week. Okay, this guy's offering me a car that runs and drives, I don't have to worry about the transmission dying tomorrow, for $Y/month. If I get 30 hours a week, and groceries cost $X... okay, this'll be painful for a little while, but once Bill gets that job with his cousin, it'll be more manageable." Then, two months later, that job prospect fell through, or your boss cuts your hours down to 25, and Suzie's sick and needs to see the doctor. You miss a payment, your car gets shut off, and you can't get to work.
It's basically gambling that you won't have any unforseen expenses, except the only other option is watching your money slowly drain away.
Which costs... how much, again?
Very poor people can often subsist on SNAP benefits, right? We recognize that starving to death isn't something we should allow.
What if, instead of SNAP, grocery stores said "Oh, you don't have the money right now? Well, that's okay, you just have to pay me at a 30% interest rate for the groceries you buy this week, financed over a year or so." And if you're late on your payment, they come to your house, empty your cupboards, and refuse to let you buy more food from them.
Similarly, it's pretty fucking awful of them to disable your car for one missed payment - how you gonna get to work when one morning your car just doesn't start? Maybe you can take that day off and borrow a friend's car tomorrow, but payday's still a week and a half away. It'll be real cool explaining to your kids that you don't have money to buy food because you got fired for not getting to work - because you didn't have money.
Predatory loans are, plain and simple, exploiting the poor. This is just the latest in a terrible series of unethical enforcement methods.
Good, chivalry is as outdated as the time from which it sprang. These bizarre, gender-based rules of conduct have been long superseded by "don't be a fucking dick, jesus."
Because we all know that if you can't afford your car payment, the ambulance fee ($900+) is going to be real fuckin easy to pay back.
Oh no, collusion's illegal? That'll definitely stop used car sellers from illegally colluding. They are highly respectable business people, after all.
These are poor people buying used clunkers. Nobody knows that they can't get "everything" better than they do.
You get your home assessed for the purposes of determining the value of your property, including the structures you have on it. A pool increases the value, and hence, your property tax.
Yeah, those stupid celebrities. Why, I'll bet they keep their money in the bank, protected only by a PIN or online password! And park their cars *outside* some times, where anyone passing by could steal it. Heck, even their homes and loved ones are protected by little more than a simple series of alarm/gate codes. They're *definitely* primarily responsible for when criminals target them for deliberate harm.
P.S: 's/where/were/g'
I have no idea what you're trying to say.
They're mobile-friendly in that they serve you the desktop site. So it's not mobile-optimized, but hey, at least you can still use it. :)
That said, it feels like slashdot still. I don't have a compelling reason to use one or the other.
Oh, individual humans, yeah, they're important. You shouldn't murder people.
But is humanity important? Is the last human alive ethically obligated to clone themselves to perpetuate the species? Or is it okay if, when they dies, humanity dies with them? That's the question I was trying to get at.
What's the point of restarting the human race? Like GP said, the universe will get along just fine without humans.