Some of us happen to have godawful ugly heads and those around them can be blissfully grateful for whatever cover the hair upon it can afford, whether this hair is natural or not.
Just because an entity's actions or decisions may be predictable does not mean that they have any less free will, it only means that previously identified habits or patterns have been identified which can be reasonably shown to influence the outcome.
If a small child puts their hand on a hot stove for the first time and they get burned, the fact that they aren't liable to do that again is fairly easy to predict, but isn't remotely an indication that some of their free will has been taken from them. If anything, the fact that they are not consciously making the specific choice to avoid their own discomfort in the future only affirms their free will, even though this is an expected and predictable response.
I'm saying that it only seems reasonable to conclude that such an argument exists, since otherwise there is no reasonable explanation for why Experian was not charged with conspiring to commit fraud in the transaction.
I am only suggesting it because, presumably, if Experian should have had sufficient cause to have realized that they were selling the info to an agency that had fraudulent intent, then Experian would be charged similarly with conspiracy to commit fraud. Because they are not, I am assuming that there exists some legal loophole through which Experian's activities in this matter remain innocent... at most, perhaps deserving of no more than a slap on the wrist or maybe a warning to not do it again.
I can only make guesses, since I don't know for sure. This is why I was using the word "presumably".
But it seems to me that if Experian were not ever supposed to have the right to sell that information at all, ever, to anyone... then they would not be able to get away with having done so.
I can only speculate that there might exist certain organizations which have legal authorization to access such data which may have the legitimate right to purchase this kind of info from companies like Experian, and that the particular purchaser described by this story may have misrepresented themselves to Experian as such, which may arguably show some negligence on Experian's part for not realizing who was purchasing the information, but in the end it was still the purchaser who was actually doing so with fraudulent intent. If this idea correct, Experian may get a slap on the wrist for this, and a warning to not let it happen again, but not actually have any charges filed against them because no intent to commit fraud was intended.
Of course, all of this is guesswork... if Experian did something wrong then obviously they should be charged... I am making an assumption here that since they are not being charged, that at least based on the information that they had at the time, they did not do anything that they were unilaterally forbidden to do.
I think, presumably, that an argument exists that Experian would not have had any way of realizing the nature of who they were selling it to, and that presumably, there is a separate argument to be made for Experian having the right to ever sell the information at all.
Not very much money going to cable companies actually makes it to the networks... whereas the money that advertisers pay for the commercials when I'm streaming right from their website go *straight* to the network.
I'd dare say that the network is making more money through ad revenue in online streaming to any single frequent home viewer than they are from a single home's cable subscription.
Mp>... for what is coming up on 5 years next spring.
And I haven't looked back.
I've long since found that the regular networks you'd watch the show on will actually frequently stream many of their most popular shows right on their own website - one usually only has to wait until the day after it has aired to watch it online.
Okay, so if I do things this way, I'm stuck in their online streaming application (invariably flash-based for the desktop, or else a native app for mobile viewing), and I'll still have to deal with commercials like I would over the air... but in the end, I'm still not shelling out any money for cable.
While I'll admit it's a problem for everything within about a 200 mile radius, and has a potential to create a 50+ meter tsunami, depending on where it hits... globally speaking, it doesn't represent a significant threat.
Looking at gcc 4.7.1's output with constexpr, I've found that putting it in a context which *requires* a constant, such as a case label in a switch statement, the compiler will faithfully output an evaluated value, as expected.
If it is used in more general contexts, however, it doesn't always work. My experience is that tail recursive constexpr's, in particular, did not always output the evaluated constant directly, but instead would often output the code to compute it per the algorithm described in the constexpr expression.
The cost of insuring a vehicle is a function more of its cost than how much it costs to repair, since when the latter exceeds the former, they consider the vehicle "totalled", and will only give you the current market value for the car.
So unless these features add significantly to the actual cost of the car, it won't significantly affect insurance premiums.
Speaking from experience, my insurance pays the bulk of if not all of the costs for any accident I am in, whether it is my fault or not. If it is my fault, then I pay a deductible for the repairs, the insurance company pays the difference, and my premiums go up. The deductible I pay right now for things is only a couple of hundred dollars for myself, which is an order of magnitude below that of almost any type of body work that might generally need to be done afer an accident. If the accident is not my fault, and there is somebody else that the insurance company can go after, then my premiums are never affected (or if they are, they are affected, as I suggested, the way that everyone's premiums would be affected simultaneously when the insurance company has to make payouts that it can't recover simply by charging higher premiums to the driver who was at fault). If it is not my fault and there is nobody else the insurance company can go after (ie, a hit and run, and I do not know who did the damage), then I pay a deductable and the insurance company pays the rest, but again, my insurance premiums do not go up. I know that the insurance companies study any claimed hit-and-runs quite carefully, looking at the details of the damage to determine if any other vehicles were involved and how the damage might have occurred based on the type of and location of the damage. If evidence surfaces afterwards to suggest that a person claimed a hit-and-run on an accident that was actually their own fault, then this probably spells a world of grief for that person, who can end up being criminally charged for filing a false insurance report, and I believe that charge where I live may carry a jail sentence in addition to a fine.
Slashdot Mirror
Something that looks sufficiently like real hair is generally much more inconspicuous and does not draw attention.
Some of us happen to have godawful ugly heads and those around them can be blissfully grateful for whatever cover the hair upon it can afford, whether this hair is natural or not.
Just because an entity's actions or decisions may be predictable does not mean that they have any less free will, it only means that previously identified habits or patterns have been identified which can be reasonably shown to influence the outcome.
If a small child puts their hand on a hot stove for the first time and they get burned, the fact that they aren't liable to do that again is fairly easy to predict, but isn't remotely an indication that some of their free will has been taken from them. If anything, the fact that they are not consciously making the specific choice to avoid their own discomfort in the future only affirms their free will, even though this is an expected and predictable response.
I'm saying that it only seems reasonable to conclude that such an argument exists, since otherwise there is no reasonable explanation for why Experian was not charged with conspiring to commit fraud in the transaction.
I am only suggesting it because, presumably, if Experian should have had sufficient cause to have realized that they were selling the info to an agency that had fraudulent intent, then Experian would be charged similarly with conspiracy to commit fraud. Because they are not, I am assuming that there exists some legal loophole through which Experian's activities in this matter remain innocent... at most, perhaps deserving of no more than a slap on the wrist or maybe a warning to not do it again.
I can only make guesses, since I don't know for sure. This is why I was using the word "presumably".
But it seems to me that if Experian were not ever supposed to have the right to sell that information at all, ever, to anyone... then they would not be able to get away with having done so.
I can only speculate that there might exist certain organizations which have legal authorization to access such data which may have the legitimate right to purchase this kind of info from companies like Experian, and that the particular purchaser described by this story may have misrepresented themselves to Experian as such, which may arguably show some negligence on Experian's part for not realizing who was purchasing the information, but in the end it was still the purchaser who was actually doing so with fraudulent intent. If this idea correct, Experian may get a slap on the wrist for this, and a warning to not let it happen again, but not actually have any charges filed against them because no intent to commit fraud was intended.
Of course, all of this is guesswork... if Experian did something wrong then obviously they should be charged... I am making an assumption here that since they are not being charged, that at least based on the information that they had at the time, they did not do anything that they were unilaterally forbidden to do.
I think, presumably, that an argument exists that Experian would not have had any way of realizing the nature of who they were selling it to, and that presumably, there is a separate argument to be made for Experian having the right to ever sell the information at all.
This story has proved to me that it just may be possible to become *less* intelligent simply by reading something
Not very much money going to cable companies actually makes it to the networks... whereas the money that advertisers pay for the commercials when I'm streaming right from their website go *straight* to the network.
I'd dare say that the network is making more money through ad revenue in online streaming to any single frequent home viewer than they are from a single home's cable subscription.
If one believes that human lives have no more inherent value or importance than computers or computer software, I suppose you may have a point
Because human life has more value than computers.
They don't. Why would they?
Not saying it doesn't make any difference, but why doesn't adding motion blur to a 24fps game look as good as a 120fps game?
... When movies are shown at 24fps and the motion still seems fluid?
I barely make half of the average of the 25th place company...
And I haven't looked back.
I've long since found that the regular networks you'd watch the show on will actually frequently stream many of their most popular shows right on their own website - one usually only has to wait until the day after it has aired to watch it online.
Okay, so if I do things this way, I'm stuck in their online streaming application (invariably flash-based for the desktop, or else a native app for mobile viewing), and I'll still have to deal with commercials like I would over the air... but in the end, I'm still not shelling out any money for cable.
While I'll admit it's a problem for everything within about a 200 mile radius, and has a potential to create a 50+ meter tsunami, depending on where it hits... globally speaking, it doesn't represent a significant threat.
Looking at gcc 4.7.1's output with constexpr, I've found that putting it in a context which *requires* a constant, such as a case label in a switch statement, the compiler will faithfully output an evaluated value, as expected.
If it is used in more general contexts, however, it doesn't always work. My experience is that tail recursive constexpr's, in particular, did not always output the evaluated constant directly, but instead would often output the code to compute it per the algorithm described in the constexpr expression.
If used on a context which requires a constant, a constexpr will *always* be evaluated at runtime.
If used in any other context, it's possible that it will instead output code to compute the value instead of evaluating it.
Uhmm... where do you live?
The only native people I know who don't pay taxes live on a native reserve.
Speaking for myself, there's some truth in that.
Only faster runtime.
Because it's a pain in the ass, that's why.
Also, I don't like wasting my time writing tools to "fix" somebody else's partially complete implementation of something... in this case, C++11.
Yes, I'm lazy. I'm a computer programmer.
First thing that comes to mind? compile-time hashes used as case labels.
constexpr unsigned crc32_table(unsigned c,unsigned k=8)
...
{
return (k==0)?c:crc32_table((((c&1)?0xedb88320u:0)^(c>>1)),k-1);
}
constexpr unsigned crc32(const char *str, std::size_t len)
{
return (len==0)?0xffffffffu:((crc32(str,len-1)>>8) ^ crc32_table((crc32(str,len-1) ^ str[len-1]) & 0xFF));
}
constexpr unsigned operator "" _hash(const char *str, std::size_t len)
{
return crc32(str,len)^0xffffffffu;
}
which could then be used in code like this:
...//do stuff
...// do stuff
switch(tag)
{
case "show"_hash:
break;
case "fill"_hash:
break;
}
(sigh)
Oh well... maybe next year they'll catch up. Oh wait, that's when C++14 is supposed to be standardized.
[double facepalm]
The cost of insuring a vehicle is a function more of its cost than how much it costs to repair, since when the latter exceeds the former, they consider the vehicle "totalled", and will only give you the current market value for the car.
So unless these features add significantly to the actual cost of the car, it won't significantly affect insurance premiums.
Speaking from experience, my insurance pays the bulk of if not all of the costs for any accident I am in, whether it is my fault or not. If it is my fault, then I pay a deductible for the repairs, the insurance company pays the difference, and my premiums go up. The deductible I pay right now for things is only a couple of hundred dollars for myself, which is an order of magnitude below that of almost any type of body work that might generally need to be done afer an accident. If the accident is not my fault, and there is somebody else that the insurance company can go after, then my premiums are never affected (or if they are, they are affected, as I suggested, the way that everyone's premiums would be affected simultaneously when the insurance company has to make payouts that it can't recover simply by charging higher premiums to the driver who was at fault). If it is not my fault and there is nobody else the insurance company can go after (ie, a hit and run, and I do not know who did the damage), then I pay a deductable and the insurance company pays the rest, but again, my insurance premiums do not go up. I know that the insurance companies study any claimed hit-and-runs quite carefully, looking at the details of the damage to determine if any other vehicles were involved and how the damage might have occurred based on the type of and location of the damage. If evidence surfaces afterwards to suggest that a person claimed a hit-and-run on an accident that was actually their own fault, then this probably spells a world of grief for that person, who can end up being criminally charged for filing a false insurance report, and I believe that charge where I live may carry a jail sentence in addition to a fine.