Because changing financial regulations and laws practically requires an act of Congress to accomplish many times, so the old way stands - no matter how repulsively outdated and impractical it is.
If you've ever had someone you were in contract with try and pull a fast one by presenting an altered photocopy of the original agreement, you would not think the practice quite so impractical.
... bullshit... It's like the old one about plastic bags having an average lifetime of less than three minutes, which seems to ignore the fact that most people use them as bin liners.
Yup. I'm just waiting for one of the filthy tree-huggers at the "health food" store (i.e., carries hippie food and fresh local stuff, as opposed to BigBoxMart's generic, shipped-in-from-lord-knows-where crap), who give me the stink-eye every time I ask for plastic bags, to mouth off and give me the opportunity to point that little factoid out.
Counter Question: Would you want to live in a society where the Government had total power to control Lawyers?
From all I've seen, there's no evidence that I don't already reside in such a hellhole. Asking whether or not I want to live in such a dystopia is pretty much non sequitur, considering.
Then you should be more clear to avoid confusion - intent is often difficult to infer from written text, and it is the duty of the writer to ensure his message is clearly stated.
What I'm saying, these countries don't abide by the laws that the rest of the world abide by, so why do we treat them as equal.
What are these international laws that "the rest of the world," which includes Russia, China, and the U.S., supposedly abide by? None I've ever heard of.
What countries like Africa are doing
Ah, a student of the Sarah Palin School of International Knowledge.
Sorry, I RTFA (bad form) and I missed the part where the government is extorting money from people for scanning and emailing documents. But thanks for your "F the gubberment!!!"" post which is always good for some cheap mod points. If that's what you're into.
Question 1: Who develops and maintains the patent system that not only allows, but seemingly encourages this sort of trolling behavior?
Question 2: Assuming a correct answer for question one, do they who maintain the patent system profit from this sort of trolling behavior?
I fail to see how anyone who answers those questions honestly can absolve the government of blame.
You're all stupid people to believe that this is the real 'legal mafia'. The government is the real mafia. Until you wake up and realize that more than 80% of your day goes to paying for the elite bastards to live high on the hog you won't ever find freedom.
The government is just the enforcer.
You want to talk to the Don, you'll be walking into a bank like Goldman Sachs or HSBC, not a government building.
So why the hell do we not cut them off from the Internet?
Here's why, by analogy:
Statement: The vast majority of violent crime occurs in urban areas.
Response by your logic: Why don't we carpetbomb all urban areas to prevent violent crime?
See what you did there?
Generalization is the hallmark of the non-thinker.
There was a race on to achieve manned powered flight at the time. See the Langley Aerodrome. Much of the criticism was from other research teams and other countries butthurt that the Wright Brothers got there first. And their real innovation was the control scheme more than simple flight. It's right there in their first patent.
I would say that St. Jobs must be rotating furiously in his grave by now, but I think the fact that this "innovation" is yet another example of Apple patenting stuff that already exists is probably enough to ease his restless spirit...
Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.
It does appear to be the case that the blame is not (currently) distributed equally. As best as I can tell, Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise without making any concessions whatsoever. Democrats are not blameless, but at the moment they do seem more reasonable.
Right, and "seem" is the important word here. In reality, if you can ignore the media hype and study voting records, you'll learn that D and R are two sides of the same coin, and actually have many confluent goals, the continued erosion of rights and freedoms being paramount.
You're too fucking stupid to even see the problem let alone actually fix it.
Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.
Logic and reason aren't your strong points, are they Cap'n?
After all, the opinion of a professor is much more worthy than that of a manual worker.
Wise words from my (manual worker) father:
Opinions are like assholes - everybody's got one, and the vast majority smell like shit.
I've known many a Ph. D. holdin' folk who are so goddamn stupid when it comes to anything but the ultra-specialized topic their education is in (mostly Psychology majors), they can't get work outside waiting tables at Steak N' Shake.
I guess what I'm saying here is, education level is not necessarily indicative of cognitive reasoning capabilities.
90% of people wouldn't want to screw around with that. When they spend all that money on a TV, they expect it to do cool stuff, out of the box.
OK, we all know the 90% is a number you pulled straight from the depths of your ass, but you do still make a valid point, so I'll go ahead and ask:
Really? Since when?
To wit - I was born in the mid 1980's, and it has always been my expectation that my TV is nothing more than a display screen, which only shows me 'cool stuff' from the devices I physically connect to it.
Then again, I've never spent more than maybe $350 on a television (hooray pawnshops and demo units!), so I'm guessing this is a YMMV situation.
As a grammar nazi (who, admittedly, commits apostrophe abuse on a regular basis), I tend to agree.
As a person who understands human nature fairly well, I completely agree - the old adage, 'you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,' rings true in more ways than one. Insults only serve to cause the one being insulted to close up mentally, thus making it impossible to educate them to their mistakes after that point.
Anyone interested in the most effective ways to encourage certain behavior (without necessarily agitating the subject to the point of non-compliance) would do well to read the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler.
A zero-day exploit has been found in the Nvidia Display Driver Service on Windows machines. An attacker with local access can use the exploit to gain root privileges on a Windows machine. Windows domains with relaxed firewall rules or file sharing enabled can also pull off the exploit, which was posted to Pastebin by researcher Peter Winter-Smith.
Granted, I've seen worse, but c'mon, man, you're getting paid for this shit.
Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?
Slashdot Mirror
Because changing financial regulations and laws practically requires an act of Congress to accomplish many times, so the old way stands - no matter how repulsively outdated and impractical it is.
If you've ever had someone you were in contract with try and pull a fast one by presenting an altered photocopy of the original agreement, you would not think the practice quite so impractical.
Technology-oriented companies who profit from paperless business exaggerate statistics in order to guilt businesses into no longer using paper!
In other news, water is wet and China is full of Chinese people. Film at 11.
... bullshit... It's like the old one about plastic bags having an average lifetime of less than three minutes, which seems to ignore the fact that most people use them as bin liners.
Yup. I'm just waiting for one of the filthy tree-huggers at the "health food" store (i.e., carries hippie food and fresh local stuff, as opposed to BigBoxMart's generic, shipped-in-from-lord-knows-where crap), who give me the stink-eye every time I ask for plastic bags, to mouth off and give me the opportunity to point that little factoid out.
If it makes you feel better, there is a typewriter not 30 feet from me in the financial department. It is still in active use.
Probably because those non-impact printers are pure shit when it comes to making carbon copies.
BTW, if your response to that is "dur, just print multiple copies," STFU - you don't know enough about finances and/or law.
A1: Lawyers
... who are employed by the government.
Counter Question: Would you want to live in a society where the Government had total power to control Lawyers?
From all I've seen, there's no evidence that I don't already reside in such a hellhole. Asking whether or not I want to live in such a dystopia is pretty much non sequitur, considering.
That's not my thinking at all.
Then you should be more clear to avoid confusion - intent is often difficult to infer from written text, and it is the duty of the writer to ensure his message is clearly stated.
What I'm saying, these countries don't abide by the laws that the rest of the world abide by, so why do we treat them as equal.
What are these international laws that "the rest of the world," which includes Russia, China, and the U.S., supposedly abide by? None I've ever heard of.
What countries like Africa are doing
Ah, a student of the Sarah Palin School of International Knowledge.
Explains a lot, actually.
Sorry, I RTFA (bad form) and I missed the part where the government is extorting money from people for scanning and emailing documents. But thanks for your "F the gubberment!!!"" post which is always good for some cheap mod points. If that's what you're into.
Question 1: Who develops and maintains the patent system that not only allows, but seemingly encourages this sort of trolling behavior?
Question 2: Assuming a correct answer for question one, do they who maintain the patent system profit from this sort of trolling behavior?
I fail to see how anyone who answers those questions honestly can absolve the government of blame.
You're all stupid people to believe that this is the real 'legal mafia'. The government is the real mafia. Until you wake up and realize that more than 80% of your day goes to paying for the elite bastards to live high on the hog you won't ever find freedom.
The government is just the enforcer.
You want to talk to the Don, you'll be walking into a bank like Goldman Sachs or HSBC, not a government building.
CyberThanks!
FTFY :P
So why the hell do we not cut them off from the Internet?
Here's why, by analogy:
Statement: The vast majority of violent crime occurs in urban areas.
Response by your logic: Why don't we carpetbomb all urban areas to prevent violent crime?
See what you did there?
Generalization is the hallmark of the non-thinker.
There was a race on to achieve manned powered flight at the time. See the Langley Aerodrome. Much of the criticism was from other research teams and other countries butthurt that the Wright Brothers got there first. And their real innovation was the control scheme more than simple flight. It's right there in their first patent.
The point - Methinks you missed it.
I would say that St. Jobs must be rotating furiously in his grave by now, but I think the fact that this "innovation" is yet another example of Apple patenting stuff that already exists is probably enough to ease his restless spirit...
We are stuck here. There is no escape.
You might be, but all the trapping being done is by your own mind, not any kind of scientific basis.
Talk is cheap. Show me your spaceship.
Replace "spaceship" with "aeroplane" and you'd fit right in with Orville and Wilbur's dissenters.
spherical robots... that are about half a meter (1.6 ft) wide and covered in spikes
The Tall Man approves!
Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.
It does appear to be the case that the blame is not (currently) distributed equally. As best as I can tell, Republicans are trying to negotiate a compromise without making any concessions whatsoever. Democrats are not blameless, but at the moment they do seem more reasonable.
Right, and "seem" is the important word here. In reality, if you can ignore the media hype and study voting records, you'll learn that D and R are two sides of the same coin, and actually have many confluent goals, the continued erosion of rights and freedoms being paramount.
It's Daes Dae'mar, pure and simple.
There are no innocents here
With regards to American politics, no truer statement has ever been spoken.
You're too fucking stupid to even see the problem let alone actually fix it.
Says the guy who insists the entire blame for the current fiscal clusterfuck lies on the shoulders of half the government, while apparently believing that the other half are completely innocent patsies.
Logic and reason aren't your strong points, are they Cap'n?
Every company needs a "we can do whatever we want" clause in their terms of usage, why not the United States?
Because the contract expressly forbids it
After all, the opinion of a professor is much more worthy than that of a manual worker.
Wise words from my (manual worker) father:
I've known many a Ph. D. holdin' folk who are so goddamn stupid when it comes to anything but the ultra-specialized topic their education is in (mostly Psychology majors), they can't get work outside waiting tables at Steak N' Shake.
I guess what I'm saying here is, education level is not necessarily indicative of cognitive reasoning capabilities.
90% of people wouldn't want to screw around with that. When they spend all that money on a TV, they expect it to do cool stuff, out of the box.
OK, we all know the 90% is a number you pulled straight from the depths of your ass, but you do still make a valid point, so I'll go ahead and ask:
Really? Since when?
To wit - I was born in the mid 1980's, and it has always been my expectation that my TV is nothing more than a display screen, which only shows me 'cool stuff' from the devices I physically connect to it.
Then again, I've never spent more than maybe $350 on a television (hooray pawnshops and demo units!), so I'm guessing this is a YMMV situation.
As a grammar nazi (who, admittedly, commits apostrophe abuse on a regular basis), I tend to agree.
As a person who understands human nature fairly well, I completely agree - the old adage, 'you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar,' rings true in more ways than one. Insults only serve to cause the one being insulted to close up mentally, thus making it impossible to educate them to their mistakes after that point.
Anyone interested in the most effective ways to encourage certain behavior (without necessarily agitating the subject to the point of non-compliance) would do well to read the book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Richard Thaler.
Good stuff.
A zero-day exploit has been found in the Nvidia Display Driver Service on Windows machines. An attacker with local access can use the exploit to gain root privileges on a Windows machine. Windows domains with relaxed firewall rules or file sharing enabled can also pull off the exploit, which was posted to Pastebin by researcher Peter Winter-Smith.
Granted, I've seen worse, but c'mon, man, you're getting paid for this shit.
Pay attention.
Sounds like you're building a strawman to me.
Sounds like you don't read the news.
Presume I don't, and thus that you need to cite your sources.
Otherwise, I would be compelled to call bullshit on your claims, as you don't seem able to to back them with verifiable fact.
Your idea is not only bad, but completely ridiculous - unless, of course, the idea is to ensure driverless cars will stay out of the roads. Are you a taxi driver, by any chance?
Traffic cop.
Get fucking serious.
The scary part is, he and his cohorts are being serious.
The problem with your argument is that guns were only used for two of those. The one with the most casualties used a bomb, not guns.
The total number killed by guns is far higher than any other method of murder.
Total number of what? In what timeframe? What is the basis of comparison here?
Sounds like you're building a strawman to me.