I would imagine that most places that take cash only advertise it when you walk in. You know going in that you need plastic. If there's no notification, then there's a reason to argue.
Most restaurants, though, are understanding about a temporary inability to pay, and will let you come back later to pay, especially if you can leave some information behind like a driver's license number or some form of collateral. They could also allow you to call someone to bring payment and let you settle things with that person later.
But going into a store, you're generally paying for the merchandise before you leave. No payment, no merchandise. It works that way in the US, Europe, and Australia.
You did it alone, which makes it far more difficult. A real 747 has, depending on the age, one or two other people to help handle all of the operations on landing. The pilot who has the controls is responsible for only the basic controls and monitoring airspeed and sink rate. The other pilot (or the computer) handles everything else.
Still, as a pilot, I'm really not keen on this idea. One of the benefits of the straight runway method is an extremely predictable location of all aircraft. You know where traffic is supposed to be based on factors other than what you hear over the radio or see on the TCAS or radar. The variability that the circular runway introduces is useful in concept, but while GPS also removes the rigidity of defined flight paths, it does so away from the congested airport airspace.
No one is obligated to accept cash. Most apartments refuse cash payments because they don't want to deal with having thousands of dollars in cash on-hand at predictable times. Major airlines don't accept cash for purchases during flights. Several restaurants in New York are cashless, and the trend has been expanding slowly to other locations. Some stay cashless, some allow cash later.
A place not accepting cash doesn't mean that you can just walk out with the merchandise, though. Your perception that you've created a debt by attempting to purchase something is off. There's no debt because the transaction hasn't been completed, and there's no contract, verbal or written, setting up payment at a later time. What you're talking about is theft, and the police can arrest you for that. The judge will find you guilty of theft. The only thing you can do is leave your coffee behind and walk out to find a place that does accept cash.
Daniel is in the Old Testament and was written more than a century before Jesus was born. I'm not sure how it would speak to the second coming of Christ when the first coming hadn't happened yet.
Cash does not have an inherent value. If it did, money markets wouldn't exist because all cash would have an inherent value, and that would not change. Even gold and silver don't have an inherent value. If I'm starving and I have something to trade for food and you're the only person around, I'm not going to trade for your silver or gold if I need food. At that time, food has a value to me, while precious metals do not.
Valuing something in a given currency a learned skill. When aboriginal tribes were forcibly assimilated into Australian society, one of the most difficult things for many of them to learn was how money worked. I read a while back about one person who walked into a grocery store soon after being brought into the city, picked up a couple of things from a shelf, and walked out, not understanding why people were shouting at and chasing him.
Similarly, what if I plopped down a coin made of palladium. Could you spot its inherent value if the language on the coin wasn't familiar to you? Would you place its value higher or lower than silver if you didn't know it was made of palladium?
Your coworkers were probably just amazed to see some silver coins only because they're not used to seeing them. If you took them into most stores, you wouldn't be able to spend them, even if they were US silver coins because people wouldn't be familiar with them. Hopefully, they wouldn't call the cops on you like some do for $2 bills, but they might refuse the transaction to avoid the risk of falling for a scam.
All it took was one signature on an old-fashioned piece of paper and private possession of gold currency became illegal, too. Sure, you could probably deal in shavings carefully measured on a scale, but that takes a much longer time to do, is subject to manipulation, and raises the risks of collecting the metals such that most places wouldn't do it.
What the intent was is actually completely irrelevant in any law. The courts do not decide on intent.
That's not always the case. Where the law has a clear and obvious meaning, legislative intent does not enter into the discussion. However, when there is ambiguity, courts may turn to legislative intent to get an idea of what the law should mean. In Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 723 (2000), the majority (six justices) opinion and one of two concurring opinions held that because a plain reading of the law resulted in an absurdity, the intent of Congress in passing the law must be examined. Thomas concurred in the result but disagreed with the need to use legislative intent, and Scalia disagreed with using legislative intent and with the Court's choice of definitions.
This has become less common in the last few decades, as discussed in this William and Mary Law Review article but it's still around at various levels. In general, the more conservative the judge or justice, the less likely they are to rely on legislative intent, while more liberal judges and justices are more likely to rely on it. However, use of it has decreased across the spectrum.
If sites are using a CDN rather than hosting the Javascript libraries and generic CSS themselves, there is a good chance that it is in your cache already.
Depending on the source used, it may also have a more recent version of the JS library than might be otherwise used, as some of the CDNs that maintain the libraries automatically update to the latest compatible version.
If looking at the content of messages sent by someone outside of your servers is illegal, then all automated mail filtering at the server level is illegal. The scammers certainly don't consent to you looking at their spam/phishing/malware to see if it should be sent off to another folder or even outright deleted.
There's nothing illegal about what Google is doing with Gmail. You can argue that there are ethical or moral reasons against it, but to argue legalities, especially without citing the criminal law it's allegedly breaking, is to undermine a critical part of modern information security.
Consumers are going to get, at best, a notice at the top of their Gmail login with information about the settlement and a reiteration of what almost all of them already knew: Google looks for keywords and alters its advertising accordingly. They're not going to get a payout, or even a coupon or discount code good for purchase of Google products.
The lawsuit was someone looking for a payout, and the settlement is Google trying to get out of it as cheaply as possible. As torkus said, the lawyers are the winners here. For everyone else, life just goes on.
You've got a point. A 750mL bottle is called a "fifth" even though five of them add up to less than a gallon (only by an ounce, but it's similar to the tiny gaps you're mentioning).
I don't know if this would work for other people, but forcing someone to use metrics for a critical part of their life, even for only a few weeks, can help metrics make sense. I've generally been in favor of a metric conversion, but never had a serious opportunity to make that jump until last year.
When my son was born premature, he was in the hospital for seven weeks. Just about everything we did was metric: his weight, his meds, the amount of milk he took was in various metric measurements. About the only non-metric measurements were his temperature and length. He was only in the NICU for a week before being moved to Pediatrics, and we basically lived there with him for six weeks, participating in most of the activities associated with building up his feeding ability and core strength so he could go home.
This has resulted in us keeping many things metric for him because it makes sense to us. We still weigh him in kilos (and have to convert that to pounds for others). While he was still on milk, we measured that out in milliliters, and when we mix his formula, everything is in grams (570g of water, 145g of formula powder, and 28g of corn cereal combined for four bottles of ~175mL of formula). Talking to his pediatrician, we have to convert to ounces (we just call it "about six"), and we have to convert recommendations from tablespoons and ounces to metric equivalents so the scale seems right to us.
We still haven't quite latched onto distance measurements, but that's probably just be a matter of finding the right scenario and using it almost exclusively.
Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.
Given the number of people that buy name brands over store brands that are often made at name brand factories despite the store brand being cheaper, your argument seems to fall flat.
The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.
80% odds of winning (though I'm not sure who had that--FiveThirtyEight had about 70% odds, and almost everyone else was 90%+) still means a 20% chance of losing. Would you play Russian Roulette with a five-chamber pistol?
that explains picking a Judge with only ten years of experience to the Supreme Court instead of the most experienced one that could be found.
Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.
Going after the most experienced usually means going after the oldest, which has some potentially significant downsides not just in terms of time on the Supreme Court but also often least understanding of current issues. Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.
If your clients are specifically targeted, no AV is likely to catch the attacks. AV is there to catch the low-hanging fruit, not the ones coming after you specifically.
It's actually based on GIANT, not RAV. Both were purchased by Microsoft, but the former was used as the launching point for what would become Windows Defender.
Account impersonation is still there, even in 64-bit Windows. It's required for how Windows works. If you want to see it, set up a VM, run Metasploit against it (use smb_login) and get a meterpreter shell, load incognito, and list and impersonate tokens to your heart's content.
Vista god bless it made UAC, privilege speration, scrambled ram addresses with aslr, buffer overflow protected buffers in c/c++, and psuedo local admin accountants which instead used a token to run something.
UAC has numerous bypasses, privilege separation has existed since at least NT4 (maybe 3.51), ASLR only applies to the heap and only when the library or executable is compiled to do so (or is forced by EMET, which can crash some applications), buffer overflow protections can be bypassed using SEH or ROP gadgets, and as I mentioned above, tokens are still around. Another note on ASLR: it only takes one library in the entire chain of libraries called to not use ASLR to make it ineffective. Also, ASLR on 32-bit Windows is weak, having only 128 possible addresses without factoring in predictability that is inherent in the system, and if the process crashes and restarts relatively gracefully, it's not hard to hit a valid address. ASLR on 64-bit Windows is much more difficult to bypass.
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine that most places that take cash only advertise it when you walk in. You know going in that you need plastic. If there's no notification, then there's a reason to argue.
Most restaurants, though, are understanding about a temporary inability to pay, and will let you come back later to pay, especially if you can leave some information behind like a driver's license number or some form of collateral. They could also allow you to call someone to bring payment and let you settle things with that person later.
But going into a store, you're generally paying for the merchandise before you leave. No payment, no merchandise. It works that way in the US, Europe, and Australia.
You did it alone, which makes it far more difficult. A real 747 has, depending on the age, one or two other people to help handle all of the operations on landing. The pilot who has the controls is responsible for only the basic controls and monitoring airspeed and sink rate. The other pilot (or the computer) handles everything else.
Still, as a pilot, I'm really not keen on this idea. One of the benefits of the straight runway method is an extremely predictable location of all aircraft. You know where traffic is supposed to be based on factors other than what you hear over the radio or see on the TCAS or radar. The variability that the circular runway introduces is useful in concept, but while GPS also removes the rigidity of defined flight paths, it does so away from the congested airport airspace.
No one is obligated to accept cash. Most apartments refuse cash payments because they don't want to deal with having thousands of dollars in cash on-hand at predictable times. Major airlines don't accept cash for purchases during flights. Several restaurants in New York are cashless, and the trend has been expanding slowly to other locations. Some stay cashless, some allow cash later.
A place not accepting cash doesn't mean that you can just walk out with the merchandise, though. Your perception that you've created a debt by attempting to purchase something is off. There's no debt because the transaction hasn't been completed, and there's no contract, verbal or written, setting up payment at a later time. What you're talking about is theft, and the police can arrest you for that. The judge will find you guilty of theft. The only thing you can do is leave your coffee behind and walk out to find a place that does accept cash.
Daniel is in the Old Testament and was written more than a century before Jesus was born. I'm not sure how it would speak to the second coming of Christ when the first coming hadn't happened yet.
Cash does not have an inherent value. If it did, money markets wouldn't exist because all cash would have an inherent value, and that would not change. Even gold and silver don't have an inherent value. If I'm starving and I have something to trade for food and you're the only person around, I'm not going to trade for your silver or gold if I need food. At that time, food has a value to me, while precious metals do not.
Valuing something in a given currency a learned skill. When aboriginal tribes were forcibly assimilated into Australian society, one of the most difficult things for many of them to learn was how money worked. I read a while back about one person who walked into a grocery store soon after being brought into the city, picked up a couple of things from a shelf, and walked out, not understanding why people were shouting at and chasing him.
Similarly, what if I plopped down a coin made of palladium. Could you spot its inherent value if the language on the coin wasn't familiar to you? Would you place its value higher or lower than silver if you didn't know it was made of palladium?
Your coworkers were probably just amazed to see some silver coins only because they're not used to seeing them. If you took them into most stores, you wouldn't be able to spend them, even if they were US silver coins because people wouldn't be familiar with them. Hopefully, they wouldn't call the cops on you like some do for $2 bills, but they might refuse the transaction to avoid the risk of falling for a scam.
All it took was one signature on an old-fashioned piece of paper and private possession of gold currency became illegal, too. Sure, you could probably deal in shavings carefully measured on a scale, but that takes a much longer time to do, is subject to manipulation, and raises the risks of collecting the metals such that most places wouldn't do it.
Would love to see the citation there.
That's not always the case. Where the law has a clear and obvious meaning, legislative intent does not enter into the discussion. However, when there is ambiguity, courts may turn to legislative intent to get an idea of what the law should mean. In Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694, 723 (2000), the majority (six justices) opinion and one of two concurring opinions held that because a plain reading of the law resulted in an absurdity, the intent of Congress in passing the law must be examined. Thomas concurred in the result but disagreed with the need to use legislative intent, and Scalia disagreed with using legislative intent and with the Court's choice of definitions.
This has become less common in the last few decades, as discussed in this William and Mary Law Review article but it's still around at various levels. In general, the more conservative the judge or justice, the less likely they are to rely on legislative intent, while more liberal judges and justices are more likely to rely on it. However, use of it has decreased across the spectrum.
Depending on the source used, it may also have a more recent version of the JS library than might be otherwise used, as some of the CDNs that maintain the libraries automatically update to the latest compatible version.
Settlements don't set precedent.
If looking at the content of messages sent by someone outside of your servers is illegal, then all automated mail filtering at the server level is illegal. The scammers certainly don't consent to you looking at their spam/phishing/malware to see if it should be sent off to another folder or even outright deleted.
There's nothing illegal about what Google is doing with Gmail. You can argue that there are ethical or moral reasons against it, but to argue legalities, especially without citing the criminal law it's allegedly breaking, is to undermine a critical part of modern information security.
It's still plaintext at the sending and receiving points unless someone used S/MIME or PGP.
Consumers are going to get, at best, a notice at the top of their Gmail login with information about the settlement and a reiteration of what almost all of them already knew: Google looks for keywords and alters its advertising accordingly. They're not going to get a payout, or even a coupon or discount code good for purchase of Google products.
The lawsuit was someone looking for a payout, and the settlement is Google trying to get out of it as cheaply as possible. As torkus said, the lawyers are the winners here. For everyone else, life just goes on.
You've got a point. A 750mL bottle is called a "fifth" even though five of them add up to less than a gallon (only by an ounce, but it's similar to the tiny gaps you're mentioning).
I don't know if this would work for other people, but forcing someone to use metrics for a critical part of their life, even for only a few weeks, can help metrics make sense. I've generally been in favor of a metric conversion, but never had a serious opportunity to make that jump until last year.
When my son was born premature, he was in the hospital for seven weeks. Just about everything we did was metric: his weight, his meds, the amount of milk he took was in various metric measurements. About the only non-metric measurements were his temperature and length. He was only in the NICU for a week before being moved to Pediatrics, and we basically lived there with him for six weeks, participating in most of the activities associated with building up his feeding ability and core strength so he could go home.
This has resulted in us keeping many things metric for him because it makes sense to us. We still weigh him in kilos (and have to convert that to pounds for others). While he was still on milk, we measured that out in milliliters, and when we mix his formula, everything is in grams (570g of water, 145g of formula powder, and 28g of corn cereal combined for four bottles of ~175mL of formula). Talking to his pediatrician, we have to convert to ounces (we just call it "about six"), and we have to convert recommendations from tablespoons and ounces to metric equivalents so the scale seems right to us.
We still haven't quite latched onto distance measurements, but that's probably just be a matter of finding the right scenario and using it almost exclusively.
Considering the engines provided a max of around 22,000 pounds of thrust and the plane weighed around 30,000 pounds empty, the brick strapped to a rocket analogy is inaccurate. The aerodynamics work, if there is a rapid enough input to deal with the rapid changes in airflow. The same has been the case since at least the F-14; the F-117 was just an extreme case. Modern fighters are even less statically stable than the Nighthawk was. It's what gives them their maneuverability.
Given the number of people that buy name brands over store brands that are often made at name brand factories despite the store brand being cheaper, your argument seems to fall flat.
The incremental cost is probably minimal, especially compared to the cost of existing bottle redesigns, as are the potential lost sales. I've seen various attempts to market bottles in forms that are supposed to get more of the product out (only the 409 bottles that feed from the bottom via a molded tube seem to fully work), and that can absolutely be a sales pitch. I hate trying to get the last of the mayo out of the jar because I end up having to dirty a spatula to get at the remnants. I'd happily get something that would allow me to pour out the last bits instead, and I suspect many others will, too.
80% odds of winning (though I'm not sure who had that--FiveThirtyEight had about 70% odds, and almost everyone else was 90%+) still means a 20% chance of losing. Would you play Russian Roulette with a five-chamber pistol?
Chief Justice John Roberts had five years of experience as a judge before being nominated for Associate Justice to replace retiring Justice O'Connor and then being nominated to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist when he died. While I don't agree with everything he says, he's done a good job of steering the court overall.
Going after the most experienced usually means going after the oldest, which has some potentially significant downsides not just in terms of time on the Supreme Court but also often least understanding of current issues. Going after the most qualified does not mean the most experienced.
SEH has been present in some form since at least XP. It's old tech, with numerous bypasses. Windows 10's big improvement is Control Flow Guard.
Getting around ASLR is relatively easy if any library loads that does not use ASLR, and this is unfortunately very common.
If your clients are specifically targeted, no AV is likely to catch the attacks. AV is there to catch the low-hanging fruit, not the ones coming after you specifically.
It's actually based on GIANT, not RAV. Both were purchased by Microsoft, but the former was used as the launching point for what would become Windows Defender.
That's not true. You can disable the SSL inspection in all of them. Finding the setting may be tricky, but it can be disabled.
Account impersonation is still there, even in 64-bit Windows. It's required for how Windows works. If you want to see it, set up a VM, run Metasploit against it (use smb_login) and get a meterpreter shell, load incognito, and list and impersonate tokens to your heart's content.
UAC has numerous bypasses, privilege separation has existed since at least NT4 (maybe 3.51), ASLR only applies to the heap and only when the library or executable is compiled to do so (or is forced by EMET, which can crash some applications), buffer overflow protections can be bypassed using SEH or ROP gadgets, and as I mentioned above, tokens are still around. Another note on ASLR: it only takes one library in the entire chain of libraries called to not use ASLR to make it ineffective. Also, ASLR on 32-bit Windows is weak, having only 128 possible addresses without factoring in predictability that is inherent in the system, and if the process crashes and restarts relatively gracefully, it's not hard to hit a valid address. ASLR on 64-bit Windows is much more difficult to bypass.