you simply don't freeze the account until you have the evidence. That way you don't freeze random innocent peoples accounts, which can stop them doing things like buying food to eat, paying rent, etc. In the case of companies paying wages which mean employees can buy food etc.
Yes the fraud would continue for longer, but its not like it hasn't being going for a long time already.
I never thought about that but you are probably right. I say or do nothing of any national significance but the likely hood of the my government trying to control my actions is probably higher than a foreign ones.
Ok I don't know why he was fired, neither do you, but the appearance of bias is almost as bad as actual bias. It takes away legitimacy from the think tank. It is like google is above firing people they disagree with (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo). A person should have the right to express their opinion weather or not you agree with it. If your think beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny then they can't be very sound beliefs.
If you are going to have a think tank, the need have opposing opinions, otherwise you come up with a predetermined solution. I you set up group to decide what color you should paint a wall, and your criteria for picking them is they want the wall to be pink, guess what you are going to get a pink wall.
If google has the power to push out people it disagrees with then you don't have a think tank, you have a lobbing tool for google. In reality that is what a "think tank" is, but it shouldn't be.
Consumers should be able to sue, without lawyers on either side, for unlimited amount for a nominal fee. The impartial court should decide the law.
While the legal system cost so much, to go through it will never be fair. Even with class action suits you have to organize it and the lawyer gets a significant portion of any reward.
People should have the right to justice no matter how wealthy they are.
Although you are right most terms and conditions have a clause that allows themselves to be changed, I don't know if a clause like that is legal (should definitely not be).
IANAL but by my understanding for a contract to be valid there has to be "a meeting of minds" that is: both parties have to understand what they are getting into. How can that be true if the contract states one party can change it any time.
The practicality is however, you have to take the company to court to prove that, and that will be expensive and not guaranteed. It is just more pragmatic to by a new speaker.
I personally will not buy anything that needs to connect to an external server, unless it it absolutely necessary, There is not need for a speaker to connect to a the manufacture to work.
I agree with most of what you say but why does 8 years seem too short?
How many movies are still making significant sums of money after 8 years, 8 years is plenty of time to recoup your investment plus profit. If you haven't made your money back by then you probably never will.
The reason 8 years sounds short is your are comparing it to 120 year and thinking that sounds like a big difference, really if a person doesn't go out to watch your movie in the first month, they probably don't care enough to pay for it anyway.
As you said goal is to give the producer incentive produce. It is not maximize there income.
Companies are evil because the system forces them to be evil. An individual can forgo money in order to do the moral thing, a company cannot.
Lets assume some body asks you for money on the street, you can say yes or no, its your money you can do it as you will. If the it was someone elses money you could not say yes the best you could do is ask them if you could give the money.
This is what situation a company CEO is in only worse, since the company may be owned by other companies or investment trust which cannot ask the true owners anything. The CEO of a company is obliged make the company as much money as possible, that includes paying the minimum amount of tax as possible, convincing the government to change as many laws as possible.
The fact that people are very short sighted and generally go for immediate gratification over long term gain is a different physiological problem
There is a difference between automation and moving jobs offshore, one you have to pay the other country and you become reliant on there product, the same amount effort is expended just by a different workforce. The other you are becoming more efficient, you producing the same with less work. The issue then is more of income distribution, it may still be a problem but the solution is political one not a technical one.
Yes there may be people see a movie every day, but why would you waste your time watching movies you don't want to see?
Isn't the point to maximize your enjoyment, not go to a lot of time and effort just to screw other netflix. It is OK if a small proportion of people do it as long as most people are sane.
As this consumer it doesn't sound like a great deal, I would possibly see 1 movie a year, and that is probably because my kids force me. There are very few movies I would like to see. I even get free movie tickets from work, and I do use them, but only because they are about to expire not because I want to see a movie. To have this for my entire family it would be $50 per month.
I actually think this is a great idea from a business perspective, apart from having to subsidize the movies, but if the studios where part of it, that would not be necessary. People would go to movies because they are "free", but they aren't since people buy other stuff when they go.
Although I agree taking/publishing intimate photos of people without there consent is wrong and people should not do it. Also visiting those site who are clearly trying hurt people is wrong.
It seems that impact it has on people is overblown. People can masturbate to you by remembering you when if they see you on the street, there is nothing you can do about it, it is simply best not to think about it.
If it is an up-skirt photo, are you even recognizable? It is a real question I don't look at those sort of things, I see no attraction is seeing a bit of badly lit material.
If someone is looking at you on these sites, you have a choice be offended, think your life is ruined because of it, be depressed. Or think all these poor saps want me and can't have me that is how sexy and awesome I am. And to the jerk ex that posted them, see how many people want me, enjoy your photos, and the rest of your sad and lonely life.
The fact is there is just so much porn out there that the likelihood is most people will not even remember you, so your life will not effected much if you don't let it. As for any future partner if they are worth it they will be loving and understanding, if not you have avoided another jerk.
I think the real problem here is that people, are taught to be embarrassed of there own bodies. If we weren't revenge porn would loose all its power and just go away.
If personal preference is bigotry then so having policies that advantage either sex is bigotry as well.
It is possible that men are different than women, society has no problems when it goes against men, for example there are more men in jail than women. The answer is will be men are more violent than women. It would be absurd to suggest we should give men less harsh sentences to even out the numbers.
It maybe the case that there is discrimination against women in certain fields but it also maybe women prefer certain job roles over others, probably a mixture of both. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing personal life over career it may even be the wiser choice. Even in the most even societies the levels it jobs seem to be the same. I see nothing wrong with suggesting it and have discussion and research into what causes it. We need to go into that research/discussion with an open mind not scream sexism or racism every time you disagree.
In order to come up with solutions we need to understand the problem, otherwise we may get a whole bunch of people doing they don't want to do while others are denied that role.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but if you aren't.
We have absolutely no idea if nukes will have any significant effect on the aliens, or just annoy them so they wipe us out faster.
These aliens must have traveled light years with an army, we can barely get a few people to the moon.
Our best hope is just to advance our technology, without wasting our resources on building up a weapons that we have no idea will work. That is just ignore the hypothetical problem.
So if I buy a DVD, I should be able to have a public screening of it right? I did pay for a license didn't I, just not the right one.
I personally think most copyright is just ridiculous, and this was probably just using the font in a reasonable manner, and $1.25 million is insane. But when the same people doing it, sue people for more for doing less, it hard not to get joy out of it, hope they lose, learn there lesson and the laws change. The last two are not very likely though.
That is not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is that there is no way to even assess the applicants, or the job that they do once they get hired, Unless we have an alien invasion, but then it will be too late.
You have described a problem with no practical description. There is no way of knowing the technology, they have, their psychology apart from they want to attack us for some reason. We know nothing about aliens. Since there is absolutely nothing we can do about it we may as well not worry about it. Of course NASA may know more about aliens than they are letting on.
You may as well hire someone to formulate a scientific God defense plan..
3) Men may not have family life commitments (which is a statement I firmly disagree with, but I am accepting as a premise for this debate), but they have their own risks. They are far more likely to jump to a competitor for a bump in salary and/or control. This can be a risk on both ends of the jump. See recent lawsuits involving Oculus and Facebook/Zenimax.
Counter intuitively this may be the reason men win more venture capital, because men's priority is money (not saying its a good thing) and this matches the Venture capitalists priority, so they are more likely to appeal to them. (Just a theory)
I think what can be done is to educate people on what makes a good investment and what doesn't, and how we can be fooled. If we are conscious of it we can a least partially compensate. I don't think investors have some secret plan to keep women down. More likely it will be something about the way men present ideas that will attract them more. People frequently make unwise decisions based on form over substance. This probably a similar thing to something read recently saying we pick charismatic leaders over humble ones even though humble leader are generally better.
Because there was no client or server-side validation put in place
What on earth would client side validation do? In fact it does have client side checking it puts the price in the client. The problem is that the hacker changed the client. No amount client side checking can fix this problem when the user controls the client.
Because when I take you someone's real estate they no longer have it, and cannot use it. Because when you own real estate and are the first person to build a house, with an indoor toilet on it it does not prevent everyone else in the world building a house with an indoor toilet.
Ideas are not finite assets that can be used up like real estate, there use and improvement over time leads immense gains to society even the original creator. Imagine if the first person to come up with fire said right nobody else can use it, or any derivative without my permission. All modern inventions would not exist, we would still be living day to day paying the inventor of fire descendants every time we want to rub two sticks together.
Just because you are a private institution does not give the right to refuse service for any reason, e.g you are black/white/green, so you can't use my privately owned institution.
Refusing service based on someones actions I believe a different matter. Even then it is a scale there few things in life are black and white, people should be able to express their beliefs as long as it does not pose a danger to others. People should be able to access essential services such as education, free from discrimination based on beliefs. Both the scale of the offensive behavior and importance of the good or service need to be taken into consideration. It would be quite reasonable for Harvard to deny someone saying I believe everyone in Harvard should die entry, however denying them air (simply for saying it) is not.
From my understanding of how Harvard university admissions work (mostly gained from TV, I have no first hand experience, of any US college enrollment process) It requires either money or an "all round" education. They interview you and see if are right, so there must have been a part that they check you are not an absolute bastard anyway (or maybe you have to be I don't know).
I would do fine, there are other companies that provide the same thing, and if there wasn't a company would soon come in and fill the gap. The question was not do these companies provide valuable services, they clearly do. The question is could you live without them, and the answer for me for all of them is I could live without them. In fact at worst it would be mildly inconvenient.
I think for most people if you removed Apple, Google, and Microsoft you would l loose smart phones (or the operating system they run on) (I suppose you could go with blackberry) but since I don't own a smart phone, that wouldn't effect me at all, and most people can live with without a cell phone, people have done it for thousands of years.
Dynamic typing vs static typing is a productivity thing for me, not speed thing, I prefer to catch my errors sooner rather than later.
That being said if computers where infinitely fast I would have them run my program with all possible inputs and see if they crashed, got type errors. So I wouldn't mind type errors as much.
Slashdot Mirror
Is this post a joke, if not:
You do know banks keep history right?
you simply don't freeze the account until you have the evidence. That way you don't freeze random innocent peoples accounts, which can stop them doing things like buying food to eat, paying rent, etc. In the case of companies paying wages which mean employees can buy food etc.
Yes the fraud would continue for longer, but its not like it hasn't being going for a long time already.
I never thought about that but you are probably right. I say or do nothing of any national significance but the likely hood of the my government trying to control my actions is probably higher than a foreign ones.
This is a mathematical proof not a scientific one. All you have to do find a flaw in the logic to disprove it.
Ok I don't know why he was fired, neither do you, but the appearance of bias is almost as bad as actual bias. It takes away legitimacy from the think tank. It is like google is above firing people they disagree with (https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/8/8/16106728/google-fired-engineer-anti-diversity-memo). A person should have the right to express their opinion weather or not you agree with it. If your think beliefs can't stand up to scrutiny then they can't be very sound beliefs.
If you are going to have a think tank, the need have opposing opinions, otherwise you come up with a predetermined solution. I you set up group to decide what color you should paint a wall, and your criteria for picking them is they want the wall to be pink, guess what you are going to get a pink wall.
If google has the power to push out people it disagrees with then you don't have a think tank, you have a lobbing tool for google. In reality that is what a "think tank" is, but it shouldn't be.
Consumers should be able to sue, without lawyers on either side, for unlimited amount for a nominal fee. The impartial court should decide the law.
While the legal system cost so much, to go through it will never be fair. Even with class action suits you have to organize it and the lawyer gets a significant portion of any reward.
People should have the right to justice no matter how wealthy they are.
Although you are right most terms and conditions have a clause that allows themselves to be changed, I don't know if a clause like that is legal (should definitely not be).
IANAL but by my understanding for a contract to be valid there has to be "a meeting of minds" that is: both parties have to understand what they are getting into. How can that be true if the contract states one party can change it any time.
The practicality is however, you have to take the company to court to prove that, and that will be expensive and not guaranteed. It is just more pragmatic to by a new speaker.
I personally will not buy anything that needs to connect to an external server, unless it it absolutely necessary, There is not need for a speaker to connect to a the manufacture to work.
I agree with most of what you say but why does 8 years seem too short?
How many movies are still making significant sums of money after 8 years, 8 years is plenty of time to recoup your investment plus profit. If you haven't made your money back by then you probably never will.
The reason 8 years sounds short is your are comparing it to 120 year and thinking that sounds like a big difference, really if a person doesn't go out to watch your movie in the first month, they probably don't care enough to pay for it anyway.
As you said goal is to give the producer incentive produce. It is not maximize there income.
Companies are evil because the system forces them to be evil. An individual can forgo money in order to do the moral thing, a company cannot.
Lets assume some body asks you for money on the street, you can say yes or no, its your money you can do it as you will. If the it was someone elses money you could not say yes the best you could do is ask them if you could give the money.
This is what situation a company CEO is in only worse, since the company may be owned by other companies or investment trust which cannot ask the true owners anything. The CEO of a company is obliged make the company as much money as possible, that includes paying the minimum amount of tax as possible, convincing the government to change as many laws as possible.
The fact that people are very short sighted and generally go for immediate gratification over long term gain is a different physiological problem
There is a difference between automation and moving jobs offshore, one you have to pay the other country and you become reliant on there product, the same amount effort is expended just by a different workforce. The other you are becoming more efficient, you producing the same with less work. The issue then is more of income distribution, it may still be a problem but the solution is political one not a technical one.
Yes there may be people see a movie every day, but why would you waste your time watching movies you don't want to see?
Isn't the point to maximize your enjoyment, not go to a lot of time and effort just to screw other netflix. It is OK if a small proportion of people do it as long as most people are sane.
As this consumer it doesn't sound like a great deal, I would possibly see 1 movie a year, and that is probably because my kids force me. There are very few movies I would like to see. I even get free movie tickets from work, and I do use them, but only because they are about to expire not because I want to see a movie. To have this for my entire family it would be $50 per month.
I actually think this is a great idea from a business perspective, apart from having to subsidize the movies, but if the studios where part of it, that would not be necessary. People would go to movies because they are "free", but they aren't since people buy other stuff when they go.
Although I agree taking/publishing intimate photos of people without there consent is wrong and people should not do it. Also visiting those site who are clearly trying hurt people is wrong.
It seems that impact it has on people is overblown. People can masturbate to you by remembering you when if they see you on the street, there is nothing you can do about it, it is simply best not to think about it.
If it is an up-skirt photo, are you even recognizable? It is a real question I don't look at those sort of things, I see no attraction is seeing a bit of badly lit material.
If someone is looking at you on these sites, you have a choice be offended, think your life is ruined because of it, be depressed. Or think all these poor saps want me and can't have me that is how sexy and awesome I am. And to the jerk ex that posted them, see how many people want me, enjoy your photos, and the rest of your sad and lonely life.
The fact is there is just so much porn out there that the likelihood is most people will not even remember you, so your life will not effected much if you don't let it. As for any future partner if they are worth it they will be loving and understanding, if not you have avoided another jerk.
I think the real problem here is that people, are taught to be embarrassed of there own bodies. If we weren't revenge porn would loose all its power and just go away.
If personal preference is bigotry then so having policies that advantage either sex is bigotry as well.
It is possible that men are different than women, society has no problems when it goes against men, for example there are more men in jail than women. The answer is will be men are more violent than women. It would be absurd to suggest we should give men less harsh sentences to even out the numbers.
It maybe the case that there is discrimination against women in certain fields but it also maybe women prefer certain job roles over others, probably a mixture of both. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing personal life over career it may even be the wiser choice. Even in the most even societies the levels it jobs seem to be the same. I see nothing wrong with suggesting it and have discussion and research into what causes it. We need to go into that research/discussion with an open mind not scream sexism or racism every time you disagree.
In order to come up with solutions we need to understand the problem, otherwise we may get a whole bunch of people doing they don't want to do while others are denied that role.
Interestingly those numbers add up to 100% what about the percentage of people that didn't care.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic or not but if you aren't.
We have absolutely no idea if nukes will have any significant effect on the aliens, or just annoy them so they wipe us out faster.
These aliens must have traveled light years with an army, we can barely get a few people to the moon.
Our best hope is just to advance our technology, without wasting our resources on building up a weapons that we have no idea will work. That is just ignore the hypothetical problem.
So if I buy a DVD, I should be able to have a public screening of it right? I did pay for a license didn't I, just not the right one.
I personally think most copyright is just ridiculous, and this was probably just using the font in a reasonable manner, and $1.25 million is insane. But when the same people doing it, sue people for more for doing less, it hard not to get joy out of it, hope they lose, learn there lesson and the laws change. The last two are not very likely though.
That is not the biggest problem, the biggest problem is that there is no way to even assess the applicants, or the job that they do once they get hired, Unless we have an alien invasion, but then it will be too late.
You have described a problem with no practical description. There is no way of knowing the technology, they have, their psychology apart from they want to attack us for some reason. We know nothing about aliens. Since there is absolutely nothing we can do about it we may as well not worry about it. Of course NASA may know more about aliens than they are letting on.
You may as well hire someone to formulate a scientific God defense plan..
3) Men may not have family life commitments (which is a statement I firmly disagree with, but I am accepting as a premise for this debate), but they have their own risks. They are far more likely to jump to a competitor for a bump in salary and/or control. This can be a risk on both ends of the jump. See recent lawsuits involving Oculus and Facebook/Zenimax.
Counter intuitively this may be the reason men win more venture capital, because men's priority is money (not saying its a good thing) and this matches the Venture capitalists priority, so they are more likely to appeal to them. (Just a theory)
I think what can be done is to educate people on what makes a good investment and what doesn't, and how we can be fooled. If we are conscious of it we can a least partially compensate. I don't think investors have some secret plan to keep women down. More likely it will be something about the way men present ideas that will attract them more. People frequently make unwise decisions based on form over substance. This probably a similar thing to something read recently saying we pick charismatic leaders over humble ones even though humble leader are generally better.
https://hbr.org/2017/04/if-hum...
Because there was no client or server-side validation put in place
What on earth would client side validation do? In fact it does have client side checking it puts the price in the client. The problem is that the hacker changed the client. No amount client side checking can fix this problem when the user controls the client.
Because when I take you someone's real estate they no longer have it, and cannot use it.
Because when you own real estate and are the first person to build a house, with an indoor toilet on it it does not prevent everyone else in the world building a house with an indoor toilet.
Ideas are not finite assets that can be used up like real estate, there use and improvement over time leads immense gains to society even the original creator. Imagine if the first person to come up with fire said right nobody else can use it, or any derivative without my permission. All modern inventions would not exist, we would still be living day to day paying the inventor of fire descendants every time we want to rub two sticks together.
Just because you are a private institution does not give the right to refuse service for any reason, e.g you are black/white/green, so you can't use my privately owned institution.
Refusing service based on someones actions I believe a different matter. Even then it is a scale there few things in life are black and white, people should be able to express their beliefs as long as it does not pose a danger to others. People should be able to access essential services such as education, free from discrimination based on beliefs. Both the scale of the offensive behavior and importance of the good or service need to be taken into consideration. It would be quite reasonable for Harvard to deny someone saying I believe everyone in Harvard should die entry, however denying them air (simply for saying it) is not.
From my understanding of how Harvard university admissions work (mostly gained from TV, I have no first hand experience, of any US college enrollment process) It requires either money or an "all round" education. They interview you and see if are right, so there must have been a part that they check you are not an absolute bastard anyway (or maybe you have to be I don't know).
I would do fine, there are other companies that provide the same thing, and if there wasn't a company would soon come in and fill the gap. The question was not do these companies provide valuable services, they clearly do. The question is could you live without them, and the answer for me for all of them is I could live without them. In fact at worst it would be mildly inconvenient.
I think for most people if you removed Apple, Google, and Microsoft you would l loose smart phones (or the operating system they run on) (I suppose you could go with blackberry) but since I don't own a smart phone, that wouldn't effect me at all, and most people can live with without a cell phone, people have done it for thousands of years.
Dynamic typing vs static typing is a productivity thing for me, not speed thing, I prefer to catch my errors sooner rather than later.
That being said if computers where infinitely fast I would have them run my program with all possible inputs and see if they crashed, got type errors. So I wouldn't mind type errors as much.
The problem would not be generating them but determining which ones are good.