Try and mentally play that out for a second... getting someone who doesn't work for you to cut hair with no prior training, or waiting tables.
Uh... no.
It's about as likely today as getting them to go in the back and wash dishes to pay off the meal.
And again, remember... we are talking about a person who has offered a completely legally recognized means of squaring the debt owed.
While it's certainly possible that the restaurant *could* call the police, I can't imagine any exchange they could possibly deliver to the cops that would get them to come without also leaving out the fact that the customer did offer to pay in cash, and if they got there and found out that was the deal, they'd probably be more pissed off at the restaurant than anything else.
While this is anecdotal evidence, I have quite consistently seen chip card with pin be measurably faster than cash with hand-counted change. About 10 to 30 seconds per transaction faster.
This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts...
So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists? What if the card is declined for some reason, but they still have cash as a backup?
Do they have to a big sign + the sever saying up front that we do not take cash?
Yes, in fact they do...
However, I'm still not sure that it would stand up if push came to shove... because in the end, payment for a meal after having received it is a *DEBT*, and cash is still always a legal offer of payment for debts.
Really... even if you *HAVE* the cash, and are willing to pay it, the cops are going to come out and arrest you?
I mean just think for a second... play out in your mind how the exchange between the restaurant on the cop they had to call to come and arrest the guy would occur. They can't say that a patron can't pay for their meal if the patron has offered cash, they can only say that the patron is not willing to pay them in their preferred payment method.... a method, which I might point out, is a LEGAL OFFER OF PAYMENT FOR DEBTS.
The only way I can see a restaurant being able to do this is if they required that the patron pay for their meal in advance of being able to eat it, because no debt has yet occurred.. and of course, that's probably going to kill nearly any chance of the patron being willing to offer any kind of voluntary tip because of how good the service or food was.
Freeware does not mean copyright-free, however.... although it would not stop you from distributing it if it became legally "free", as long as the copyright is valid it could still prevent you from developing derivative works (such as certain types of interoperable software such as game servers), or cracking any technological protection measures.
It was, but more to the point of does it taste like the meat it replaces or not? If not, then whether it presents a nutritional substitute or not is irrelevant.
Obviously, but whoever said that what people choose to put in their own bodies is generally going to be determined by objective criteria in the first place?
You *can* still do that with IPv6; you aren't forced to.
This. Exactly.
Also, with IPv6's extension header system, you can theoretically even route right through a NAT, completely neutralizing its most significant disadvantage, as long as the NAT in the middle recognizes and handles the extension, and the session layer on the remote machine that may need to be able to route a raw IP packet to an otherwise undetectable IP address knows to add the extension to the appropriate outgoing packets.
Not inherently. NAT is still entirely possible under IPv6 (and in some cases, where end-to-end communication is not needed, may even sometimes be preferable), but the nice thing about still using IPv6 is that you will have a greater freedom of choice on which machines are invisible to the outside and which are not.
Once elected, you have to do what your donors want you to do
Only if you feel like you will continue to need their contributions to win the next election.
And it's not hard to imagine that one could be wealthy enough to not require donations to run a successful election campaign, although I also imagine that the number of people who've done this in the past and managed to win is probably pretty small.
If you want an objective measurement, it is worth noting that unemployment is nearly 1% higher today than it was in 1967.
Which, if you think what percentage of people who had jobs then which are entirely automated today is actually not anywhere near as bad it might sound.
The problem is that congress has turned into a binary partisan farce where votes are cast not based on what the congressman thinks, but whether it opposes the adversary. So it won't happen. There's really no way out of this quagmire either, from within the system itself.
And how is that different from US elections themselves?
Given the risks of walking out that you mentioned (which if you had not pointed out yourself, I would have), I think saying that it's less risky than flying out is a lot like saying that cyanide has less calories than arsenic.
I thought the whole thing was thoroughly debunked... not as being any kind of deliberate scam, per se, but debunked as being even remotely possible to achieve the kinds of ends that the creators were trying to sell.
Unfortunately, I am somewhat skeptical of most people's ability, particularly those in power that would legislate on the matter, to think rationally enough to come to that conclusion.
After all, it's so much more fun to make laws based on what "feels right", isn't it?
Or, we could just fall back and leave it there. In terms of our body clocks, it's not going to be any difference, and it would still achieve the desired ends of DST not costing any more lives every spring and autumn.
Further north, the days are already plenty long enough in the summer without pushing sunset even an hour later than it already is, and in the winter, if the clocks were still pushed ahead, the sun wouldn't even be up in these places until after 9am. Sure, the extra hour of daylight in the winter evenings would be a nice to have, there is a rather large problem that arises with taking that hour from the morning:
I realize that a lot of people drive their kids to school these days anyways, but there's still a heckuva lot that walk in the morning, and it's ultimately safer for them to do so when the sun is out than when it is still dark.
What we *COULD* do is have everyone south of about 45 degrees on DST year 'round, and everyone north of it on standard time year 'round. That way everybody could be happy, right?
That's fine except for the more northern areas... where the sun already stays out later in the summer anyways. Keeping it year 'round would mean that the sun wouldn't even rise until after 9am in the winter in the areas that are further north.
And of course, places as far north as Alaska wouldn't even need the sun to be out an extra hour in the summer anyways.
I'd rather it be standard time year 'round, personally, but I'd settle for splitting the difference.
The worst you could say about such a message is that it is not informative enough to the end user for them to easily recognise what they may have done incorrectly, but I don't see how on earth anyone could argue that the practice is actually weak, or that it harms security in any way.
And for fuck's sake.... if I see an error that says that says that my username or password is incorrect, then I'm going to go back and explicitly check both my username and password anyway. Expecting the computer to tell you which one was wrong if it happened to find an account with the name you specified has negative security implications that would *VASTLY* outweigh any possible added convenience.
I have a suggestion... instead of even mentioning the username or password, just give the message "Login failed". It's simple and entirely clear what is being said. The fact that it doesn't tell you *why* the login failed is irrelevant. That is a problem that ought to be handled by the end user anyways.
.... I don't really think that it is something that anyone has any sort of inviolable right to when they are in a public place. I don't personally go around poking my nose into other people's business because I value my own privacy, and treat others as I would like to be treated, but not everyone abides by such premises, and I'd be foolish to expect that the world around me would somehow be obliged to cater to my own values, no matter how righteous I may believe them to be. If I want privacy, I will take whatever measures are legally available to me to ensure that I have it... and as a first requirement, that's going to include not being anywhere that someone who I may not want to see or hear me is also.
I don't think it will burst. Its continual increase is attributable to people being willing to spend their own hard-earned money on things that they don't need. And I don't imagine that is going anywhere.
That said, I still wouldn't bank on it. Largely because the amount of bitcoin that one would need to buy to see any kind of appreciable gain is simply prohibitively expensive.
And I have better things to spend my money on than something I don't really urgently need.
Slashdot Mirror
Try and mentally play that out for a second... getting someone who doesn't work for you to cut hair with no prior training, or waiting tables.
Uh... no.
It's about as likely today as getting them to go in the back and wash dishes to pay off the meal.
And again, remember... we are talking about a person who has offered a completely legally recognized means of squaring the debt owed.
While it's certainly possible that the restaurant *could* call the police, I can't imagine any exchange they could possibly deliver to the cops that would get them to come without also leaving out the fact that the customer did offer to pay in cash, and if they got there and found out that was the deal, they'd probably be more pissed off at the restaurant than anything else.
While this is anecdotal evidence, I have quite consistently seen chip card with pin be measurably faster than cash with hand-counted change. About 10 to 30 seconds per transaction faster.
So tell me... please... how well a business's right to refuse to accept cash would work for things like restaurants and hair stylists? What if the card is declined for some reason, but they still have cash as a backup?
Yes, in fact they do...
However, I'm still not sure that it would stand up if push came to shove... because in the end, payment for a meal after having received it is a *DEBT*, and cash is still always a legal offer of payment for debts.
Really... even if you *HAVE* the cash, and are willing to pay it, the cops are going to come out and arrest you?
I mean just think for a second... play out in your mind how the exchange between the restaurant on the cop they had to call to come and arrest the guy would occur. They can't say that a patron can't pay for their meal if the patron has offered cash, they can only say that the patron is not willing to pay them in their preferred payment method.... a method, which I might point out, is a LEGAL OFFER OF PAYMENT FOR DEBTS.
The only way I can see a restaurant being able to do this is if they required that the patron pay for their meal in advance of being able to eat it, because no debt has yet occurred.. and of course, that's probably going to kill nearly any chance of the patron being willing to offer any kind of voluntary tip because of how good the service or food was.
The rich don't have free cards either. There are still yearly or monthly fees involved, just as with a bank account.
Fallacy.
Sugar tastes good too... but it is quite far from good for you.
Freeware does not mean copyright-free, however.... although it would not stop you from distributing it if it became legally "free", as long as the copyright is valid it could still prevent you from developing derivative works (such as certain types of interoperable software such as game servers), or cracking any technological protection measures.
It was, but more to the point of does it taste like the meat it replaces or not? If not, then whether it presents a nutritional substitute or not is irrelevant.
Obviously, but whoever said that what people choose to put in their own bodies is generally going to be determined by objective criteria in the first place?
Lots of people eat meat because it tastes good, not because of the protein.
This. Exactly.
Also, with IPv6's extension header system, you can theoretically even route right through a NAT, completely neutralizing its most significant disadvantage, as long as the NAT in the middle recognizes and handles the extension, and the session layer on the remote machine that may need to be able to route a raw IP packet to an otherwise undetectable IP address knows to add the extension to the appropriate outgoing packets.
Not inherently. NAT is still entirely possible under IPv6 (and in some cases, where end-to-end communication is not needed, may even sometimes be preferable), but the nice thing about still using IPv6 is that you will have a greater freedom of choice on which machines are invisible to the outside and which are not.
Only if you feel like you will continue to need their contributions to win the next election.
And it's not hard to imagine that one could be wealthy enough to not require donations to run a successful election campaign, although I also imagine that the number of people who've done this in the past and managed to win is probably pretty small.
If you want an objective measurement, it is worth noting that unemployment is nearly 1% higher today than it was in 1967.
Which, if you think what percentage of people who had jobs then which are entirely automated today is actually not anywhere near as bad it might sound.
And how is that different from US elections themselves?
Given the risks of walking out that you mentioned (which if you had not pointed out yourself, I would have), I think saying that it's less risky than flying out is a lot like saying that cyanide has less calories than arsenic.
I thought the whole thing was thoroughly debunked... not as being any kind of deliberate scam, per se, but debunked as being even remotely possible to achieve the kinds of ends that the creators were trying to sell.
Bingo.
Unfortunately, I am somewhat skeptical of most people's ability, particularly those in power that would legislate on the matter, to think rationally enough to come to that conclusion.
After all, it's so much more fun to make laws based on what "feels right", isn't it?
Or, we could just fall back and leave it there. In terms of our body clocks, it's not going to be any difference, and it would still achieve the desired ends of DST not costing any more lives every spring and autumn.
Further north, the days are already plenty long enough in the summer without pushing sunset even an hour later than it already is, and in the winter, if the clocks were still pushed ahead, the sun wouldn't even be up in these places until after 9am. Sure, the extra hour of daylight in the winter evenings would be a nice to have, there is a rather large problem that arises with taking that hour from the morning:
I realize that a lot of people drive their kids to school these days anyways, but there's still a heckuva lot that walk in the morning, and it's ultimately safer for them to do so when the sun is out than when it is still dark.
What we *COULD* do is have everyone south of about 45 degrees on DST year 'round, and everyone north of it on standard time year 'round. That way everybody could be happy, right?
That's fine except for the more northern areas... where the sun already stays out later in the summer anyways. Keeping it year 'round would mean that the sun wouldn't even rise until after 9am in the winter in the areas that are further north.
And of course, places as far north as Alaska wouldn't even need the sun to be out an extra hour in the summer anyways.
I'd rather it be standard time year 'round, personally, but I'd settle for splitting the difference.
The worst you could say about such a message is that it is not informative enough to the end user for them to easily recognise what they may have done incorrectly, but I don't see how on earth anyone could argue that the practice is actually weak, or that it harms security in any way.
And for fuck's sake.... if I see an error that says that says that my username or password is incorrect, then I'm going to go back and explicitly check both my username and password anyway. Expecting the computer to tell you which one was wrong if it happened to find an account with the name you specified has negative security implications that would *VASTLY* outweigh any possible added convenience.
I have a suggestion... instead of even mentioning the username or password, just give the message "Login failed". It's simple and entirely clear what is being said. The fact that it doesn't tell you *why* the login failed is irrelevant. That is a problem that ought to be handled by the end user anyways.
I don't think it will burst. Its continual increase is attributable to people being willing to spend their own hard-earned money on things that they don't need. And I don't imagine that is going anywhere.
That said, I still wouldn't bank on it. Largely because the amount of bitcoin that one would need to buy to see any kind of appreciable gain is simply prohibitively expensive.
And I have better things to spend my money on than something I don't really urgently need.
You can't (legally) publish an iOS app with Windows.