You possess whatever you physically have... you cannot really physically possess territory, although you can occupy it which is a form of possession, but only to the extent that you cannot be removed from it by someone or something else. In nature, the number of things that we truly own is typically quite small. Ownership is slightly more persistent encompassing anything that we possess as well as anything that we *can* possess, but only to the extent that others cannot alter that.
Research, or talking with experts. Ideally, they will learn about the technology themselves, at least enough to recognize when things are not secure. If it isn't too much to expect that children learn how to look both ways before crossing the street, it can't be too much to expect of adults to look before they leap as well.
I would suggest that just as much responsibility should be on the consumer to try and verify that the device they purchase is actually secure as should be on the provider of those devices. If consumers are too lazy or indifferent to bother, they should be treated exactly the same as small children who haven't yet learned that they need to look both ways before crossing a street.
If a person runs a red light and kills somebody, you don't go after the automobile manufacturer... you go after the guy who broke the law.
But if you leave your keys in your car, you can be charged with a crime
Actually, no... If you leave your keys in your car, you simply cannot make a recognized insurance claim if it is stolen. It may certainly be illegal to leave the keys in a car that you do *not* own without consent of the owner, however, but it is not illegal to leave your keys in your own car. Waxing hypothetical, here, it would only be illegal to leave your keys in your own car if it were somehow an actual legal requirement for you to possess and have access to a car at all times.
I get that, but then he reasonably should have already been looking for other work already, and it rightly wouldn't have mattered if there were actually plans to let him go or not that he otherwise didn't know about since he would be intent on leaving as soon as he finds something else anyways.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know.... probably to one of them, but I don't know how it would work in that case because I've never seen an instance of it come up.
There's countless reasons why you don't tell people ahead of time,
Sure, but there's fewer reasons to not tell them if they actually ask. Again, if you cannot trust the employer to be honest with you about the security of your position when directly asked about the matter, then you probably should not be working for them in the first place
How os that supposed to game anything? If you share a bedroom with someone, then that person is considered your SO for purposes of welfare. You can't game that because it's not remotely advantageous for collecting welfare when your SO is expected to support you before you can collect welfare.
If you are giving your two week notice, then you should already have another job lined up anyways... so that's not a problem. You would be available to start the job as soon as you tell your employer, and you could collect two weeks of extra pay while you work for someone else earning money there as well.
I'm not sure how that games anything.... when it comes to welfare, you aren't eligible if your SO makes more than a certain amount, and if you share a bedroom with a person, then welfare considers that person your SO. Regardless of their gender, regardless of yours, and regardless of any claims that you might make that you are not married.
Also, you can't collect welfare while you are going to school. There's student loans for that.
Only if the provider is interested in passing along savings to the consumer. With essential goods like food and housing, the provider has no incentive to do this since the demand is going to be there regardless of how much they charge, and improved technology that cuts the provider's costs only results in higher profit margins for them rather than reduced costs for the consumer. At best, it only slows down the rate of inflation for those goods, but does not decrease their cost.
It doesn't matter if the person is actually your SO or not, welfare automatically treats them as such if you share a bedroom with a person. Anything you may say to contradict this with regards to your sexuality or even the gender of the person with whom you share a bedroom is irrelevant. I knew someone that this happened to.
NIce try... but you'd have to live apart for that to fly. Provincial welfare here considers you "married" the instant you move in with anyone with whom you share a bedroom. Any claims you try to make that you are not married, regardless of any claims about your sexuality, gender or that of the person with whom you share a bedroom, will fall on deaf ears
False, in nature, you own whatever you possess as long as nobody has the ability to take it from you at the time. If both criteria are not present, then you do not own it... the second point can sometimes be hard to meet, but it is definitely not impossible in many cases. It is entirely possible to own something in nature at one time and not at another if circumstances surrounding either possession or the ability to take it from you ever change.
No... supply exceeding demand makes things cheaper. Self-checkouts, for instance do not offer any savings to consumers that use them over using a checkout with a human teller, for instance.
Automation only comes into play at possibly making things more affordable because it may make large enough supplies possible in certain industries, particularly in the area of luxury items, but the possibility of such an increase in supply does not translate to every industry.
It's cute that you appear to really believe that. really it is.
In reality, they will continue to charge whatever price nets them the most profit, and if they think that lowering their price even has a chance of lowering the bottom line, forget about it.
No, actually, I don't know that.... what the fuck is someone doing continuing to work for somebody that they don't feel they can trust to be honest with them?
And if you never feel you can trust people you work for, then what would make you think that the problem isn't you, and not them?
I've once had the misfortune of working for an employer that I quickly came to realize I couldn't trust. I quit after just under three months.
I'm suggesting that if you work for people you don't trust, then you are working for the wrong people anyways... you are dissatisfied enough with your job that you should be by all rights trying to find another job already, and quitting at the earliest opportunity. At that point, whether they are actually intending to lay you off or not should be entirely irrelevant to you because even if they intended to let you go, you're already intent on leaving, so nothing of value is lost.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but if you can store 110 in COBOL, then you can ordinarily also store 999.
Fair enough, but security researchers typically know what sort of things to look for when verifying that a system is secure.
You possess whatever you physically have... you cannot really physically possess territory, although you can occupy it which is a form of possession, but only to the extent that you cannot be removed from it by someone or something else. In nature, the number of things that we truly own is typically quite small. Ownership is slightly more persistent encompassing anything that we possess as well as anything that we *can* possess, but only to the extent that others cannot alter that.
Research, or talking with experts. Ideally, they will learn about the technology themselves, at least enough to recognize when things are not secure. If it isn't too much to expect that children learn how to look both ways before crossing the street, it can't be too much to expect of adults to look before they leap as well.
I would suggest that just as much responsibility should be on the consumer to try and verify that the device they purchase is actually secure as should be on the provider of those devices. If consumers are too lazy or indifferent to bother, they should be treated exactly the same as small children who haven't yet learned that they need to look both ways before crossing a street.
If a person runs a red light and kills somebody, you don't go after the automobile manufacturer... you go after the guy who broke the law.
Actually, no... If you leave your keys in your car, you simply cannot make a recognized insurance claim if it is stolen. It may certainly be illegal to leave the keys in a car that you do *not* own without consent of the owner, however, but it is not illegal to leave your keys in your own car. Waxing hypothetical, here, it would only be illegal to leave your keys in your own car if it were somehow an actual legal requirement for you to possess and have access to a car at all times.
What, you mean like the early 1970's? Because laws outlawing hacking, or "phreaking" as it was called in the day are about that old.
I get that, but then he reasonably should have already been looking for other work already, and it rightly wouldn't have mattered if there were actually plans to let him go or not that he otherwise didn't know about since he would be intent on leaving as soon as he finds something else anyways.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know.... probably to one of them, but I don't know how it would work in that case because I've never seen an instance of it come up.
Sure, but there's fewer reasons to not tell them if they actually ask. Again, if you cannot trust the employer to be honest with you about the security of your position when directly asked about the matter, then you probably should not be working for them in the first place
Because of course insulting a person's inteligence is such a classic way ot showing how they are wrong....
How os that supposed to game anything? If you share a bedroom with someone, then that person is considered your SO for purposes of welfare. You can't game that because it's not remotely advantageous for collecting welfare when your SO is expected to support you before you can collect welfare.
If you are giving your two week notice, then you should already have another job lined up anyways... so that's not a problem. You would be available to start the job as soon as you tell your employer, and you could collect two weeks of extra pay while you work for someone else earning money there as well.
I'm not sure how that games anything.... when it comes to welfare, you aren't eligible if your SO makes more than a certain amount, and if you share a bedroom with a person, then welfare considers that person your SO. Regardless of their gender, regardless of yours, and regardless of any claims that you might make that you are not married.
Also, you can't collect welfare while you are going to school. There's student loans for that.
Only if the provider is interested in passing along savings to the consumer. With essential goods like food and housing, the provider has no incentive to do this since the demand is going to be there regardless of how much they charge, and improved technology that cuts the provider's costs only results in higher profit margins for them rather than reduced costs for the consumer. At best, it only slows down the rate of inflation for those goods, but does not decrease their cost.
It doesn't matter if the person is actually your SO or not, welfare automatically treats them as such if you share a bedroom with a person. Anything you may say to contradict this with regards to your sexuality or even the gender of the person with whom you share a bedroom is irrelevant. I knew someone that this happened to.
NIce try... but you'd have to live apart for that to fly. Provincial welfare here considers you "married" the instant you move in with anyone with whom you share a bedroom. Any claims you try to make that you are not married, regardless of any claims about your sexuality, gender or that of the person with whom you share a bedroom, will fall on deaf ears
Generally not... do you know how little welfare is Ontario? Even minimum wage jobs will tend to be more worthwhile.
False, in nature, you own whatever you possess as long as nobody has the ability to take it from you at the time. If both criteria are not present, then you do not own it... the second point can sometimes be hard to meet, but it is definitely not impossible in many cases. It is entirely possible to own something in nature at one time and not at another if circumstances surrounding either possession or the ability to take it from you ever change.
No... supply exceeding demand makes things cheaper. Self-checkouts, for instance do not offer any savings to consumers that use them over using a checkout with a human teller, for instance.
Automation only comes into play at possibly making things more affordable because it may make large enough supplies possible in certain industries, particularly in the area of luxury items, but the possibility of such an increase in supply does not translate to every industry.
It's cute that you appear to really believe that. really it is.
In reality, they will continue to charge whatever price nets them the most profit, and if they think that lowering their price even has a chance of lowering the bottom line, forget about it.
Yep..... realized the typo after I had already hit submit.
No, actually, I don't know that.... what the fuck is someone doing continuing to work for somebody that they don't feel they can trust to be honest with them?
And if you never feel you can trust people you work for, then what would make you think that the problem isn't you, and not them?
I've once had the misfortune of working for an employer that I quickly came to realize I couldn't trust. I quit after just under three months.
I'm suggesting that if you work for people you don't trust, then you are working for the wrong people anyways... you are dissatisfied enough with your job that you should be by all rights trying to find another job already, and quitting at the earliest opportunity. At that point, whether they are actually intending to lay you off or not should be entirely irrelevant to you because even if they intended to let you go, you're already intent on leaving, so nothing of value is lost.
How do people like this even have enough brain cells to remember to breathe, let alone perform technically advanced jobs?