There is more. What is the "expectation of privacy" for a person in their own bathroom that happens to have a window through which they can be observed from a public utility poll? Since it is visible from a public space, does that mean there is no expectation of privacy? What about using laser microphones, laser light bouncing off of windows is also visible from public spaces... Our laws are so far behind the technology it isn't funny...
This has been taking place in tech companies for years. I know of one large company, that shall remain nameless, doing this as far back as the dot-com era. Rather than try to fight to enforce the non-competes, valuable employees who chose to leave were offered a fairly sizable pay (depending on their skill and negotiating skills, sometimes way more than 100% of their previous salary) to not work for the competition. Every so many months a groups of people would meet and decide whether it is still worth paying the individual, or release them from their non-compete. Some people have gotten as much as 200% salary for a couple of years just so they don't work for the competition.
I think what you are missing here is that raising the minimum wage speeds up this process. Say that robots are cheaper than $15/hr employee. If a business can get a $8/hr employee, then they will not buy a robot until it gets much cheaper. On the other hand, if they can no longer get the $8/hr employee, they will buy the robot, which in turn make the robots cheaper through economies of scale, which will further displace additional workers. We are heading towards the guaranteed income economies with the "unemployable" (no skills that can provide a living) class comprising up to 80% of society, however we should not try to hasten the creation of the "unemployables" until the system is in place and can handle the load (i.e. the 20% of people who are willing to learn and work are supporting the remaining 80% who prefer not to produce but instead to pursue hobbies - whether art, gardening, learning for the sake of learning (perpetual students), or on the other end of the spectrum smoking pot and watching TV).
PS> I am not saying that this is bad either - the guaranteed income will enable more people to be creative and take risk, therefore providing higher gains for society as a whole, however there will be problems with the fact that the 20% who work have so much more than the 80% who don't, that it will be perceived as "unfair", even though the 80% will basically be supported by the 20% (akin to kids saying it's so unfair that the parents have money and they don't).
...and after criminals use the exploit and show off the police, there will be an investigation and configuration fixed. So, the same outcome except the researcher got some money instead of a sentence. And worst case is he gets money AND a sentence, but that's still better than just a sentence.
There have been laws in the past requiring some percentage of local content on TV, for example in Canada. The laws originated because TV content was delivered via air-waves, which were a shared national resource, hence it was thought fairness should be regulated. What the politicians don't get is that Netflix is not pushing/broadcasting content, it is an on-demand/pull model. What this means is that even if they were to reserve 20% (though I'm not sure what that means as cloud storage can be extended almost at will) for French content, it is not going to result in the content being watched if people prefer to watch the other content. So what's next, forcing Netflix to make users watch French content? How is that going to work, a used gets a message when they go to watch rerun of "Friends" - "Sorry, no more non-French content allowed for you until you go watch a few hours of French content"?
"[he] previously had made his living off illegal marijuana grows, but moved into prostitution when the drug was legalized." I wonder what the government could do to make him and people like him stop (or move out of) prostitution.
Absolutelt, the insurance company has money to lose. The doctor has absolutely nothing to lose if your kid gets sick or dies, but he does gain from selling more vaccines.
You are wrong. Insurance companies will insure against anything as long as there is solid proof of the odds. There is a jeweler in Vancouver, BC who pays insurance against how much snow will fall there in January. If you buy from him during Christmas season, if more than X cm of snow falls in January, you get all your money back.
Also, I don't need it to be an insurance company. If the company making the vaccine is so sure about how rare complication are, let them offer the insurance - it will make them more money and make parents feel safe about the risks. Unless they are wrong about the odds of complications... like I said, let them put their money where their mouth is, "sorry, you are one in a million, here is a bill for endangering you child" just doesn't build any confidence for me, no matter how many classes you can make me sit through.
When we had to rush my son to the hospital after a bad reactions his vaccination (MMR), the doctors just said, "this is so rare, like one in a million". He had to have an inhaler for years after that. So when it came time to vaccinate our daughter, I asked for insurance. A million to one chance of bad reaction they say, so I figured give the vaccine manufacturer 2:1 to make money, I offered to buy insurance for $1000, so that if my daughter has any complications , $500,000,000 goes into her healthcare fund. Guess what, no takers. So we declined. It seems when they tell you bad reactions are so rare, they are obviously lying, or they could make good money selling insurance. No class will convince me how low risk this is until you can find an insurance company willing to back those stats up by selling insurance - make them sit through a class and see if their actuaries are convinced.
Neh, still a risk of your name leaking and you landing in jail. Just sell it to the highest bidder on the dark web, then hunker down until after the elections. Whoever buys the exploit will win the election, so they will have no interest to exposing or prosecuting you. Just don't try to blackmail them afterwards, or you may end up alligator food. Oh wait, did I just spoil the next season of House of Cards?;-)
One win proves absolutely nothing. Show a consistent string of wins that is otherwise statistically improbable, then actually put money into the bets (rather than theoretical betting), then you have some proof. Win only 10% of the 540 to 1 payouts and you have a money machine.
Voting with your money is democracy, just a better form of it. Those who have no vested interest in this don't vote. In this case only customers and drivers get the vote, rather than people who never use or provide the service but vote because they think they know better, or because they are filling out a ballot to vote on some other issue and have to put a check-mark next to something for this question.
1. Electric engines can go forwards and backwards. I have an EV and reverse is not a real gear, motor actually turns in reverse 2. I had a hybrid for over 7 years, after 50K miles I sold it with 80% original brakes - most of my braking was regenerative. So over the 50k miles I used up 20% of one set of pads. 3. In my current EV, I rarely touch the brake over 20mph. Most of my braking is pure regen, which by the way can easily generate >50KW of power (more than most homes) which is captured by the battery.
Why not offer different levels of background check, let the customers decide which drivers they want? The guy with no check offers cheapest rides, the guy with deep check clearance gets to charge the most. Driver's pay for the background check and get the option to charge ride premium for that, but have the ability to wave the premium if they so desire. That would show whether people value background checks and how much they value them.
In case of any prolonged electrical blackout, google-eye batteries will get used up and then what, they can't see anything clearly until power is back on?
Bingo! Also, there is no "lost revenue" for the content companies if there is no way to obtain the content by paying for it - the content provider gets no money whether their content is pirated or not.
So, rather than denying access for those who don't wish to be tracked, can a company simply make its content pay-walled by default, but rather than paying $2 per month or something allow the users to accept tracking instead?
The policy is not at all ridiculous at all, you just miss the point. Terrorism is a very serious business and we cannot have people making fun about it. Not at airports, not anywhere. The more serious people take terrorism, the more funding is available.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's government business to be getting involved in a verbal joke between 2 private individuals? They guy didn't start a website collecting ISIS Beer fund, or place posters, or even post a public comment on a site - it was a private comment between 2 individuals. The terrorists sure won with people like you - terrorized to the point that they are willing to give the government full rights to censor and even punish (by taking money) private conversations between 2 people. This is truly ridiculous.
There are a lot of reasons to put the deposit down: 1. Low risk - fully refundable until actually placing configured order. The only risk is Tesla going under. 2. Early Model 3 car still qualify for up to $7,500 US government tax credit. After Tesla has produced 200K cars for US market (including all Model S and X) the rebate drops off fast. 3. With this strong demand, those who put the deposit down will get their cars up to 2 years earlier. First releases of a new model car tend to hold higher residuals as there are no older alternatives. 4. Some may hope to speculate, buy an early car and sell it for profit to those who will pay an extra couple of thousand for not waiting 2 years for the new, trendy car. Once the $7.5K rebate drops off, that's an extra $7.5K value for the person who did get it and is reselling the car to those who can no longer get it.
So, rather that collect 0.25% in a savings account, place a $1000 deposit, with low risk, but lots of potential upside. Why do people think that's crazy?
Tesla Model S was the best selling EV in the US last year (yes, it outsold the next best - the Leaf, in number of units, not just sales $) - source http://insideevs.com/monthly-p....
Typical home charger for a Tesla is the mobile connector which delivers 10KW charging from a dryer outlet. Owners have an option to install a 20KW Tesla plug-in charger in their garages, which many people do. Tesla plug-in "superchargers" charge up to 120KW, so 20KW wireless is not 3 times the rate of any of those plug-in chargers (it's actually only 1/6th of the most powerful one). It probably is 3x the rate of the original, discontinued a couple of years ago, RAV4 EV charger, but saying it's 3x the rate of plug-in chargers used today is incorrect. Lastly, there are public chargers limited to ~6.6KW, but their limit is not because of the fact that they are wired, it's mostly their power source (the J1772 connector used by most of those can handle up to 20KW).
Well, it doesn't bug you much now, maybe because you haven't thought through the implications. However, next time you end up having to tow your LEAF because while you were parked away from home some script kiddie drained your traction battery as a prank, you may change your mind. If it happens often enough, I bet it would start bugging you to a point where you would disable the feature (at least you have that option).
I think the assumption is, if you have access to someone's phone, you have access to they yahoo mail as most smartphone users sync their mail to their phones.
Slashdot Mirror
I figure "F*ck you" is closer to "Thank you" than "Thanks", no?
There is more. What is the "expectation of privacy" for a person in their own bathroom that happens to have a window through which they can be observed from a public utility poll? Since it is visible from a public space, does that mean there is no expectation of privacy? What about using laser microphones, laser light bouncing off of windows is also visible from public spaces... Our laws are so far behind the technology it isn't funny...
This has been taking place in tech companies for years. I know of one large company, that shall remain nameless, doing this as far back as the dot-com era. Rather than try to fight to enforce the non-competes, valuable employees who chose to leave were offered a fairly sizable pay (depending on their skill and negotiating skills, sometimes way more than 100% of their previous salary) to not work for the competition. Every so many months a groups of people would meet and decide whether it is still worth paying the individual, or release them from their non-compete. Some people have gotten as much as 200% salary for a couple of years just so they don't work for the competition.
I think what you are missing here is that raising the minimum wage speeds up this process. Say that robots are cheaper than $15/hr employee. If a business can get a $8/hr employee, then they will not buy a robot until it gets much cheaper. On the other hand, if they can no longer get the $8/hr employee, they will buy the robot, which in turn make the robots cheaper through economies of scale, which will further displace additional workers. We are heading towards the guaranteed income economies with the "unemployable" (no skills that can provide a living) class comprising up to 80% of society, however we should not try to hasten the creation of the "unemployables" until the system is in place and can handle the load (i.e. the 20% of people who are willing to learn and work are supporting the remaining 80% who prefer not to produce but instead to pursue hobbies - whether art, gardening, learning for the sake of learning (perpetual students), or on the other end of the spectrum smoking pot and watching TV).
PS> I am not saying that this is bad either - the guaranteed income will enable more people to be creative and take risk, therefore providing higher gains for society as a whole, however there will be problems with the fact that the 20% who work have so much more than the 80% who don't, that it will be perceived as "unfair", even though the 80% will basically be supported by the 20% (akin to kids saying it's so unfair that the parents have money and they don't).
...and after criminals use the exploit and show off the police, there will be an investigation and configuration fixed. So, the same outcome except the researcher got some money instead of a sentence. And worst case is he gets money AND a sentence, but that's still better than just a sentence.
There have been laws in the past requiring some percentage of local content on TV, for example in Canada. The laws originated because TV content was delivered via air-waves, which were a shared national resource, hence it was thought fairness should be regulated. What the politicians don't get is that Netflix is not pushing/broadcasting content, it is an on-demand/pull model. What this means is that even if they were to reserve 20% (though I'm not sure what that means as cloud storage can be extended almost at will) for French content, it is not going to result in the content being watched if people prefer to watch the other content. So what's next, forcing Netflix to make users watch French content? How is that going to work, a used gets a message when they go to watch rerun of "Friends" - "Sorry, no more non-French content allowed for you until you go watch a few hours of French content"?
"[he] previously had made his living off illegal marijuana grows, but moved into prostitution when the drug was legalized." I wonder what the government could do to make him and people like him stop (or move out of) prostitution.
Absolutelt, the insurance company has money to lose. The doctor has absolutely nothing to lose if your kid gets sick or dies, but he does gain from selling more vaccines.
You are wrong. Insurance companies will insure against anything as long as there is solid proof of the odds. There is a jeweler in Vancouver, BC who pays insurance against how much snow will fall there in January. If you buy from him during Christmas season, if more than X cm of snow falls in January, you get all your money back.
Also, I don't need it to be an insurance company. If the company making the vaccine is so sure about how rare complication are, let them offer the insurance - it will make them more money and make parents feel safe about the risks. Unless they are wrong about the odds of complications... like I said, let them put their money where their mouth is, "sorry, you are one in a million, here is a bill for endangering you child" just doesn't build any confidence for me, no matter how many classes you can make me sit through.
When we had to rush my son to the hospital after a bad reactions his vaccination (MMR), the doctors just said, "this is so rare, like one in a million". He had to have an inhaler for years after that. So when it came time to vaccinate our daughter, I asked for insurance. A million to one chance of bad reaction they say, so I figured give the vaccine manufacturer 2:1 to make money, I offered to buy insurance for $1000, so that if my daughter has any complications , $500,000,000 goes into her healthcare fund. Guess what, no takers. So we declined. It seems when they tell you bad reactions are so rare, they are obviously lying, or they could make good money selling insurance. No class will convince me how low risk this is until you can find an insurance company willing to back those stats up by selling insurance - make them sit through a class and see if their actuaries are convinced.
Neh, still a risk of your name leaking and you landing in jail. Just sell it to the highest bidder on the dark web, then hunker down until after the elections. Whoever buys the exploit will win the election, so they will have no interest to exposing or prosecuting you. Just don't try to blackmail them afterwards, or you may end up alligator food. Oh wait, did I just spoil the next season of House of Cards? ;-)
One win proves absolutely nothing. Show a consistent string of wins that is otherwise statistically improbable, then actually put money into the bets (rather than theoretical betting), then you have some proof. Win only 10% of the 540 to 1 payouts and you have a money machine.
Voting with your money is democracy, just a better form of it. Those who have no vested interest in this don't vote. In this case only customers and drivers get the vote, rather than people who never use or provide the service but vote because they think they know better, or because they are filling out a ballot to vote on some other issue and have to put a check-mark next to something for this question.
1. Electric engines can go forwards and backwards. I have an EV and reverse is not a real gear, motor actually turns in reverse
2. I had a hybrid for over 7 years, after 50K miles I sold it with 80% original brakes - most of my braking was regenerative. So over the 50k miles I used up 20% of one set of pads.
3. In my current EV, I rarely touch the brake over 20mph. Most of my braking is pure regen, which by the way can easily generate >50KW of power (more than most homes) which is captured by the battery.
Why not offer different levels of background check, let the customers decide which drivers they want? The guy with no check offers cheapest rides, the guy with deep check clearance gets to charge the most. Driver's pay for the background check and get the option to charge ride premium for that, but have the ability to wave the premium if they so desire. That would show whether people value background checks and how much they value them.
In case of any prolonged electrical blackout, google-eye batteries will get used up and then what, they can't see anything clearly until power is back on?
Bingo! Also, there is no "lost revenue" for the content companies if there is no way to obtain the content by paying for it - the content provider gets no money whether their content is pirated or not.
So, rather than denying access for those who don't wish to be tracked, can a company simply make its content pay-walled by default, but rather than paying $2 per month or something allow the users to accept tracking instead?
The policy is not at all ridiculous at all, you just miss the point. Terrorism is a very serious business and we cannot have people making fun about it. Not at airports, not anywhere. The more serious people take terrorism, the more funding is available.
Are you seriously suggesting that it's government business to be getting involved in a verbal joke between 2 private individuals? They guy didn't start a website collecting ISIS Beer fund, or place posters, or even post a public comment on a site - it was a private comment between 2 individuals. The terrorists sure won with people like you - terrorized to the point that they are willing to give the government full rights to censor and even punish (by taking money) private conversations between 2 people. This is truly ridiculous.
There are a lot of reasons to put the deposit down:
1. Low risk - fully refundable until actually placing configured order. The only risk is Tesla going under.
2. Early Model 3 car still qualify for up to $7,500 US government tax credit. After Tesla has produced 200K cars for US market (including all Model S and X) the rebate drops off fast.
3. With this strong demand, those who put the deposit down will get their cars up to 2 years earlier. First releases of a new model car tend to hold higher residuals as there are no older alternatives.
4. Some may hope to speculate, buy an early car and sell it for profit to those who will pay an extra couple of thousand for not waiting 2 years for the new, trendy car. Once the $7.5K rebate drops off, that's an extra $7.5K value for the person who did get it and is reselling the car to those who can no longer get it.
So, rather that collect 0.25% in a savings account, place a $1000 deposit, with low risk, but lots of potential upside. Why do people think that's crazy?
Tesla Model S was the best selling EV in the US last year (yes, it outsold the next best - the Leaf, in number of units, not just sales $) - source http://insideevs.com/monthly-p....
Typical home charger for a Tesla is the mobile connector which delivers 10KW charging from a dryer outlet. Owners have an option to install a 20KW Tesla plug-in charger in their garages, which many people do. Tesla plug-in "superchargers" charge up to 120KW, so 20KW wireless is not 3 times the rate of any of those plug-in chargers (it's actually only 1/6th of the most powerful one). It probably is 3x the rate of the original, discontinued a couple of years ago, RAV4 EV charger, but saying it's 3x the rate of plug-in chargers used today is incorrect. Lastly, there are public chargers limited to ~6.6KW, but their limit is not because of the fact that they are wired, it's mostly their power source (the J1772 connector used by most of those can handle up to 20KW).
Well, it doesn't bug you much now, maybe because you haven't thought through the implications. However, next time you end up having to tow your LEAF because while you were parked away from home some script kiddie drained your traction battery as a prank, you may change your mind. If it happens often enough, I bet it would start bugging you to a point where you would disable the feature (at least you have that option).
Sounds more like they are "outsourcing QA to the end users".
Bingo! Some MBA trying to justify his or her paycheck? Just because it is technically possible, it doesn't mean it should be done.
I think the assumption is, if you have access to someone's phone, you have access to they yahoo mail as most smartphone users sync their mail to their phones.