But you tell me, if you are a cook who cooks great 3 min omlets and some smuck comes in and gives you $1000 for a 1 minute omlete , what do you do ?
I tell you what I wouldn't do - give him a salmonella-inducing, raw fucking egg and call it an omelette. Because I'm not a moral-less piece of shit who values profits over the health and safety of my customers.
If the job can't be done under the criteria set forth, it can't be fucking done under the criteria set forth. You tell the fuckers that, and when they say, "well, we'll pay you extra to make the impossible happen," you politely decline, tip your hat, and be about your fucking business. Because guess what? When shit hits the fan and people start to suffer actual harm, who do you think is going to end up on that cross - the assholes that paid for it, or the idiot who tried to make a quick buck by willfully poisoning his customer base?
If this is true, why then is Outerwall Inc. (owners of RedBox) doing well with just $1 day rentals?
Um... every statistic has it's outliers? Or maybe, just maybe, you didn't do your due diligence researching before you posted; For example, I'm guessing you didn't read Outerwall, Inc.'s company profile, which states:
Outerwall, Inc. is an American company with a network of movie and game rental kiosks as well as [CoinStar] coin cashing machines.
As far as I know (having not read the company prospectus), they run Redbox at a loss and fund it with CoinStar profits.
The "content cartels" aren't complaining.
You know this how? Have they praised Redbox publicly or something? Because I found this article which would indicate otherwise.
Your research skills could use a bit of honing, Grasshopper.
except that's just not how it works. I swap kegs in my kegorator all the time. I paid the initial deposit and haven't been charged since, except for the contents of the new kegs.
batteries are not like kegs, dude. For starters, you can refill a keg indefinitely as long as you don't damage the casing too much; batteries, not so much.
Think more like what happens when you go to an auto parts store to swap out your car's lead-acid battery with a new one: they charge you $80 for a new battery, but give you $5 for your old one if you trade it in (called a 'core charge'). Why only $5? Because you've already burned up most-if-not-all the recharge cycles (which is why you're replacing it), and thus the old one is basically scrap at this point.
Independently owned swap stations will inevitably engage in the same practice, to offset expenses when replacing out-of-recharge-cycle batteries, rare as that occasion might be. CYA is good business sense.
This is an incredibly good idea. And if it's good enough for science, it should also be good enough for government. Political campaign funding should be the first thing to be justified in relation to this 'national interest'. Military expenditure, committees, homeland security, the CIA, the NSA, secrecy, court appointments, taxation, the TSA, body scanners, laws.. well, just about everything should meet this criteria shouldn't it?
Wait, you think it should apply to us?!?!?!?!
On second thought, maybe this isn't such a great idea...
I don't dispute that some corporations mislead. But they usually do that through remaining silent and/or saying ambiguous things so that people will draw the wrong conclusion.
Agreed, but you have to understand that being overly specific can have the same effect on understanding as being overly ambiguous.
There are limits to what we can know. So it is correct to say Apple claimed X, but Y may or may not be true, where X is independent from Y.
Pretty roundabout way to agree with someone, but I'll take it.
I wonder at the telecom corps that did receive NSLs, where many people must have been in the know, but none of them fessed up.
I still hold out hope that some telco employee has Edward Snowden-sized balls, and is just waiting for the right time to slap them on the table.
Dish's CEO said, 'This is not an easy decision, yet consumer demand is clearly moving to digital distribution of video entertainment.'
Oh, sure, blame it all on the consumers!
Let's be realistic here: Yes, increasing consumer demand for instant gratification is part of the video stores downfall, but they're experiencing an equal amount of pressure from the content cartels, who have spent years trying inadvertently (or intentionally) to kill off the rental industry with their obsession over controlling how consumers can access media.
Why do you want the statement to answer a different question?
I don't think you picked up exactly what I was laying down. Namely, that being honest and being completely truthful aren't necessarily confluent.
For example, I could tell someone, "I never banged your sister," and be honest but not completely truthful; being completely truthful would require me to also disclose that I did get a BJ from her.
If Apple says it didn't receive a request for information under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, then you know exactly what that means.
Right* - we also know exactly what it doesn't mean - it doesn't mean that they never, ever gave user info to the feds, just that if they did it was not under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Actually not right - we know what Apple means for us to think it means, but without access to their equipment and records there is no way to verify whether or not this statement is true; however, I'm willing to ignore the seemingly obvious for the sake of moving the discussion forward.
The AC was saying that he/she/it didn't buy the truth of the statement.
Well, forgetting for a moment that for-profit businesses do lie, regularly, to cover their own asses, I have to agree with that assessment.
Ever read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series? If so, then think about truth as the Third Oath of the Aes Sedai.
If not, then I'll go ahead and explain it: The Third Oath of the Aes Sedai basically binds this group of people in a way that makes it physically impossible to tell an outright fabrication; however, the Aes Sedai get around this limitation by being less than forthright, making sins of omission, or otherwise riding the skirt of that which is true.
I argued that big corporations don't lie in that manner because there are strong reasons not to.
To which I offer the counter argument that unless said corporations are giving access to their records in order to allow verification of their statements, there is no definitive proof that what they claim is true actually is. Companies like those run by the likes of Bernard Madoff, or better yet, pretty much anything Goldman Sachs has had a hand in the last couple decades, are perfect counter-examples to your position.
This has no bearing on answers to different questions.
Except an equal propensity for dishonesty by virtue of over-specification.
I do. Big corporations don't lie when they make simple statements like that. It's not the way they operate.
Even more, the executives of shareholder-owned companies have rather strong legal requirements to be honest in statements to shareholders, which public statements are.
Shady people can turn honesty on its head.
For example, the phrase "Apple said it has never received a request for information under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act" does not mean that Apple has never received any requests for user info, nor does it mean that they've never turned user info over to the US government; all it means is that the Apple corporation is claiming that they haven't received a certain piece of paperwork tied to a certain section of a certain law. They very well may have turned over private information to the feds, but not because of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
I mean, what kind of jingoist, fascist asshole blames the guy who risked his ass to bring the evil deeds of clandestine criminal groups into the sunlight?
So you disagree with my stand opposing human smuggling and trafficking, the hacking of hospitals, anti-slavery charities, and other NGOs, not to mention opposing the killing by the hundreds of innocent tourists having a nice vacation?
That weak attempt to discredit someone by claiming they support policies that no rational person would ever support is the best response you can come up with? Shit, I know middle-schoolers with better game.
And FTR, no, I disagree with your insistence to suck fed cock by laying the blame for their crimes one the one dude who had the fucking hojo's to call them out on it. A point which is likely glaringly obvious to everyone on the planet other than you.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
No shit; I mean, what kind of jingoist, fascist asshole blames the guy who risked his ass to bring the evil deeds of clandestine criminal groups into the sunlight?
If you are an adult capable of cogent thought you should know that not all incompetence is created equal.
Besides, in reference to the US government, they operate the largest military force the world has ever known, a legal code that's so huge and convoluted even the people who are tasked with tracking it admit they don't know what all they've made illegal, a global communications interception network capable of not only monitoring and logging, but of searching the communications of almost every single human on the planet, etc., etc., etc.
Sometimes I wonder if that whole "never attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" was thought up by some US government agency, to trick ignorant, gullible suckers into thinking the largest, richest, most powerful government in the history of mankind is run by retarded monkeys.
Conversely, what if the 'suspects' knew it wasn't a real girl, and that knowledge is the only reason they engaged in an activity they otherwise might not have?
...alluding that people trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds is somehow similar to someone saying "penis" in the presence of a 17-year-old
I think you found my point there. In some jurisdictions (namely any jurisdiction with a hard-line age of majority set at 18), they aren't just similar, but legally they're exactly the same. A high-school Romeo is, in legal terms, just as much a predator as anyone found by this bot, and I think that's wrong.
I worry that in the rush to "protect people from predators", we'll forget to check first whether the "predators" are actually dangerous.
Yea, this.
Saying, "oh, but we're protecting children!" probably doesn't offer a lot of comfort to people such as an associate of mine, who was, at the age of 18, convicted of child molestation after his 17 year old girlfriend's parents called the police on him, and is now a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.
With 416 horsepower on tap and full torque available from a standstill thanks to the electric motor, the Model S went from 60 mph to 100 mph in less than five seconds.
Ok... what does the whole "100% torque from standstill" thing have to do with 60-100 time?
You do realize that 60 MPH is not a standstill, don't you, cartechboy? Lord I hope so...
P.S. I found a nice chart of the 60-100 times of a host of automobiles here for those that are interested in how the Tesla S stacks up.
Slashdot Mirror
It is possible to cook a safe 1 minute omelette.
""well, we'll pay you extra to make the impossible happen," you politely decline
I'm glad the people at NASA didn't take that attitude about going to the Moon.
The point - you missed it.
"will reportedly join the private sector"
Certainly he won't be going into a "job" straight away - who in their right mind will hire him?
Medical industry lobbying organizations.
>
But you tell me, if you are a cook who cooks great 3 min omlets and some smuck comes in
and gives you $1000 for a 1 minute omlete , what do you do ?
I tell you what I wouldn't do - give him a salmonella-inducing, raw fucking egg and call it an omelette. Because I'm not a moral-less piece of shit who values profits over the health and safety of my customers.
If the job can't be done under the criteria set forth, it can't be fucking done under the criteria set forth. You tell the fuckers that, and when they say, "well, we'll pay you extra to make the impossible happen," you politely decline, tip your hat, and be about your fucking business. Because guess what? When shit hits the fan and people start to suffer actual harm, who do you think is going to end up on that cross - the assholes that paid for it, or the idiot who tried to make a quick buck by willfully poisoning his customer base?
If this is true, why then is Outerwall Inc. (owners of RedBox) doing well with just $1 day rentals?
Um... every statistic has it's outliers? Or maybe, just maybe, you didn't do your due diligence researching before you posted; For example, I'm guessing you didn't read Outerwall, Inc.'s company profile, which states:
Outerwall, Inc. is an American company with a network of movie and game rental kiosks as well as [CoinStar] coin cashing machines.
As far as I know (having not read the company prospectus), they run Redbox at a loss and fund it with CoinStar profits.
The "content cartels" aren't complaining.
You know this how? Have they praised Redbox publicly or something? Because I found this article which would indicate otherwise.
Your research skills could use a bit of honing, Grasshopper.
Fortunately a for-profit company can only do what the market will bear. Only the government can force you to buy something you don't want.
Who do you think "convinces" the government to mandate such things? The for-profit businesses that stand to gain from the mandate.
Kinda like how the PPACA legislation was pretty much written by insurance companies.
except that's just not how it works. I swap kegs in my kegorator all the time. I paid the initial deposit and haven't been charged since, except for the contents of the new kegs.
batteries are not like kegs, dude. For starters, you can refill a keg indefinitely as long as you don't damage the casing too much; batteries, not so much.
Think more like what happens when you go to an auto parts store to swap out your car's lead-acid battery with a new one: they charge you $80 for a new battery, but give you $5 for your old one if you trade it in (called a 'core charge'). Why only $5? Because you've already burned up most-if-not-all the recharge cycles (which is why you're replacing it), and thus the old one is basically scrap at this point.
Independently owned swap stations will inevitably engage in the same practice, to offset expenses when replacing out-of-recharge-cycle batteries, rare as that occasion might be. CYA is good business sense.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
Except that they've previously denied doing that.
Well, good thing that corporations never lie or misrepresent information they present to the public, then. </sarc>
Do you have any evidence that they do make factual misrepresentations to the public?
Hell yea! It's actually pretty easy to come up with incidents to cite, considering how openly evil banks have become in the past 30 years or so:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405
This is why anytime someone says IT (as opposed to CS or engineering), I think moron.
How funny - I get the same impression from people who think IT, CS, and engineering are interchangeable terms.
This is an incredibly good idea. And if it's good enough for science, it should also be good enough for government. Political campaign funding should be the first thing to be justified in relation to this 'national interest'. Military expenditure, committees, homeland security, the CIA, the NSA, secrecy, court appointments, taxation, the TSA, body scanners, laws .. well, just about everything should meet this criteria shouldn't it?
Wait, you think it should apply to us?!?!?!?!
On second thought, maybe this isn't such a great idea...
-- Congress
Unless you are a supporter of that party that believes that ignorance and truthiness is power, of course.
Repubmocrats?
Or are we still pretending that the One Party is actually two?
I don't dispute that some corporations mislead. But they usually do that through remaining silent and/or saying ambiguous things so that people will draw the wrong conclusion.
Agreed, but you have to understand that being overly specific can have the same effect on understanding as being overly ambiguous.
There are limits to what we can know. So it is correct to say Apple claimed X, but Y may or may not be true, where X is independent from Y.
Pretty roundabout way to agree with someone, but I'll take it.
I wonder at the telecom corps that did receive NSLs, where many people must have been in the know, but none of them fessed up.
I still hold out hope that some telco employee has Edward Snowden-sized balls, and is just waiting for the right time to slap them on the table.
To be part of the content cartel you have to produce content.
Not necessarily - one could also just own the rights to a metric shit tonne of content.
Dish's CEO said, 'This is not an easy decision, yet consumer demand is clearly moving to digital distribution of video entertainment.'
Oh, sure, blame it all on the consumers!
Let's be realistic here: Yes, increasing consumer demand for instant gratification is part of the video stores downfall, but they're experiencing an equal amount of pressure from the content cartels, who have spent years trying inadvertently (or intentionally) to kill off the rental industry with their obsession over controlling how consumers can access media.
Content cartels... like Dish Network.
Why do you want the statement to answer a different question?
I don't think you picked up exactly what I was laying down. Namely, that being honest and being completely truthful aren't necessarily confluent.
For example, I could tell someone, "I never banged your sister," and be honest but not completely truthful; being completely truthful would require me to also disclose that I did get a BJ from her.
If Apple says it didn't receive a request for information under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, then you know exactly what that means.
Right* - we also know exactly what it doesn't mean - it doesn't mean that they never, ever gave user info to the feds, just that if they did it was not under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act.
* Actually not right - we know what Apple means for us to think it means, but without access to their equipment and records there is no way to verify whether or not this statement is true; however, I'm willing to ignore the seemingly obvious for the sake of moving the discussion forward.
The AC was saying that he/she/it didn't buy the truth of the statement.
Well, forgetting for a moment that for-profit businesses do lie, regularly, to cover their own asses, I have to agree with that assessment.
Ever read Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series? If so, then think about truth as the Third Oath of the Aes Sedai.
If not, then I'll go ahead and explain it: The Third Oath of the Aes Sedai basically binds this group of people in a way that makes it physically impossible to tell an outright fabrication; however, the Aes Sedai get around this limitation by being less than forthright, making sins of omission, or otherwise riding the skirt of that which is true.
I argued that big corporations don't lie in that manner because there are strong reasons not to.
To which I offer the counter argument that unless said corporations are giving access to their records in order to allow verification of their statements, there is no definitive proof that what they claim is true actually is. Companies like those run by the likes of Bernard Madoff, or better yet, pretty much anything Goldman Sachs has had a hand in the last couple decades, are perfect counter-examples to your position.
This has no bearing on answers to different questions.
Except an equal propensity for dishonesty by virtue of over-specification.
The implementation that this researcher has come up with may be new and novel, and I respect that.
My problem is with the media, who is acting like using visible light for data communications is some sort of previously unknown wündertech.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
Except that they've previously denied doing that.
Well, good thing that corporations never lie or misrepresent information they present to the public, then. </sarc>
I do. Big corporations don't lie when they make simple statements like that. It's not the way they operate.
Even more, the executives of shareholder-owned companies have rather strong legal requirements to be honest in statements to shareholders, which public statements are.
Shady people can turn honesty on its head.
For example, the phrase "Apple said it has never received a request for information under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act" does not mean that Apple has never received any requests for user info, nor does it mean that they've never turned user info over to the US government; all it means is that the Apple corporation is claiming that they haven't received a certain piece of paperwork
tied to a certain section of a certain law. They very well may have turned over private information to the feds, but not because of Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act.
As far as we know, they could be handing user information over to the government the second it hits Apple's servers; no request necessary.
I mean, what kind of jingoist, fascist asshole blames the guy who risked his ass to bring the evil deeds of clandestine criminal groups into the sunlight?
So you disagree with my stand opposing human smuggling and trafficking, the hacking of hospitals, anti-slavery charities, and other NGOs, not to mention opposing the killing by the hundreds of innocent tourists having a nice vacation?
That weak attempt to discredit someone by claiming they support policies that no rational person would ever support is the best response you can come up with? Shit, I know middle-schoolers with better game.
And FTR, no, I disagree with your insistence to suck fed cock by laying the blame for their crimes one the one dude who had the fucking hojo's to call them out on it. A point which is likely glaringly obvious to everyone on the planet other than you.
It's not the leaks that threaten these talks. It's the espionage that threatens the talks.
No shit; I mean, what kind of jingoist, fascist asshole blames the guy who risked his ass to bring the evil deeds of clandestine criminal groups into the sunlight?
*looks at submitter name in summary*
Ah, that kind.
If you are an adult capable of cogent thought you should know that not all incompetence is created equal.
Besides, in reference to the US government, they operate the largest military force the world has ever known, a legal code that's so huge and convoluted even the people who are tasked with tracking it admit they don't know what all they've made illegal, a global communications interception network capable of not only monitoring and logging, but of searching the communications of almost every single human on the planet, etc., etc., etc.
Sometimes I wonder if that whole "never attribute to malice that which is explained by incompetence" was thought up by some US government agency, to trick ignorant, gullible suckers into thinking the largest, richest, most powerful government in the history of mankind is run by retarded monkeys.
OK, so parroting speculation. Whatever.
Still vaporware.
.
What if it had been a real girl?
Conversely, what if the 'suspects' knew it wasn't a real girl, and that knowledge is the only reason they engaged in an activity they otherwise might not have?
...alluding that people trying to have online-sex with 10-year-olds is somehow similar to someone saying "penis" in the presence of a 17-year-old
I think you found my point there. In some jurisdictions (namely any jurisdiction with a hard-line age of majority set at 18), they aren't just similar, but legally they're exactly the same. A high-school Romeo is, in legal terms, just as much a predator as anyone found by this bot, and I think that's wrong.
I worry that in the rush to "protect people from predators", we'll forget to check first whether the "predators" are actually dangerous.
Yea, this.
Saying, "oh, but we're protecting children!" probably doesn't offer a lot of comfort to people such as an associate of mine, who was, at the age of 18, convicted of child molestation after his 17 year old girlfriend's parents called the police on him, and is now a registered sex offender for the rest of his life.
With 416 horsepower on tap and full torque available from a standstill thanks to the electric motor, the Model S went from 60 mph to 100 mph in less than five seconds.
Ok... what does the whole "100% torque from standstill" thing have to do with 60-100 time?
You do realize that 60 MPH is not a standstill, don't you, cartechboy? Lord I hope so...
P.S. I found a nice chart of the 60-100 times of a host of automobiles here for those that are interested in how the Tesla S stacks up.
I'm Chilean, so I'm American
Wow... just... just, wow.
Do we really need to have this discussion again? Because it was stupid last time.