The chemicals concerned (e.g. NOx, O3) have a low lifespan in the atmosphere and so are not going to make the trip across the Pacific. A more interesting question is how much of China's smog is as a result of USA manufacturers moving their production to China.
Good point. The interesting question will be the issue of 'reasonable protection' - and the court cases to determine that are still in the future. Let's hope that it's a reasonably high standard set so there is a good incentive to big companies to get it RIGHT!
As to why this happened and what went wrong. Certainly there will be no excuse for lack of resources in the IT department; OTOH a configuration error is always possible.
Given the new EU regulations since May, there's a very good chance that BA will be fined a very respectable amount - in the tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds. Certainly it's a good opportunity for us to see if such fines will be used to frighten companies into doing better. OTOH we have to accept that everyone gets burgled occasionally...
If the possibility of a violent response by the proles to language that does not call for violence is a legitimate reason for limiting free speech, then free speech has ceased to exist, because the fear of being charged with 'incitement' for what was merely strong language will be crippling.
Before WWII most people regarded fetuses as people, with the result that abortion could attract very serious punishments as a crime, and struggled to believe Jews were people. Nowadays the fashion has reversed in most countries, although the allegations of anti-semitism on the left in the UK does suggest it's not transitioned completely.
So who was right? There isn't a 'right' answer; it all boils down to your metaphysical beliefs, which may be INFORMED by science (when does the brain stem develop, when is the embryo old enough that an identical twin can no longer happen) but it's always your choice...
The UK loans system - where you pay a higher rate of income tax collected by the tax authorities - until you pay off your loan or 30 years have elapsed since graduation, when it disappears, is a better model here; if the doctors do well, they repay the loan rather than merely being subsidised permanently. If they choose a low paying medical career, they don't.
As a (former) public sector worker I accepted a lower rate of pay in exchange for very good pension when I retire. To suggest that tax payers have the right to rate on that contract because it is now inconvenient is evil; it's a breach of promise. If we're free to tear up our promises when they are no longer convenient, then the basis for society is largely gone, and certainly you can't expect your spouse to be faithful to you. Yes, going forward, public sector employers may be wise to alter the terms of their wage contract - but let's do it honestly, with pay rises for those losing pension rights.
OTOH I accept that unions have got legislators to agree pension rises as a way to pay their members more but without it appears on the books in the current financial year. However the idea that it's therefore right to claw that generosity back is to undermine any commitment to states being bound by contracts freely entered into. Yes, future pensions can be capped - but don't expect public sector workers not to strike to mark their resistance to a pay cut.
Something like Bill Gates winning a House of Representatives seat for which he didn't stand with 100% of the vote. Until something that visible occurs, this will remain a phony war.
The rational solution is congestion pricing; you want to drive in Manhattan, you pay the government a lot of money. This means that the government gets the excess revenue, not the vultures who own taxi medallions - perhaps the most iniquitous thing I've ever seen in economics; I really thought it was an April Fools joke when I first heard about them.
Unfortunately this requires a bureaucratic machine to respond to such subtleties. Clearly for someone with a concern for the appearance of their public space, graffiti removal IS meaningful. To brats for whom it is 'art', it would be punitive; finding something they would find meaningful will be challenging!
The UK supreme court has agreed that the police can tell a potential employer about a case where the accused was found not guilty. https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
Consider a few vital jobs: doctor, nurse, teacher - indeed all child and elder care, public transit driver, police officer, prison officer, judge, construction. All of those jobs are very real and need more than 2 hours a week. Given they constitute a substantial part of the economy, on their own they torpedo your argument about it being 2 hours a week.
But we should make them something they can take pride in; for example a small but significant contribution to the community such as removing graffiti or repairing roads, or even listening to children read in primary school, they could be really helpful.
Any implementation of UBI will be approximately revenue neutral, or it will be unaffordable - i.e. there will be increased taxes somewhere to pay for it. Therefore total demand will be the same. Now yes, some commodities will experience a rise in demand for them, but equally others - in this case the apartments that people who want to move into these ones - will see a fall in demand.
I get your point - but the 'revenue neutral' will, overall, result in no major shifts in prices.
Slashdot Mirror
That really surprises me, but I agree that the source appears valid.
The chemicals concerned (e.g. NOx, O3) have a low lifespan in the atmosphere and so are not going to make the trip across the Pacific. A more interesting question is how much of China's smog is as a result of USA manufacturers moving their production to China.
Surely time to run screaming... Scary story!
Good point. The interesting question will be the issue of 'reasonable protection' - and the court cases to determine that are still in the future. Let's hope that it's a reasonably high standard set so there is a good incentive to big companies to get it RIGHT!
It's not clear yet, but given it was "transactions" that were reported as abused, such an attack would make sense.
As to why this happened and what went wrong. Certainly there will be no excuse for lack of resources in the IT department; OTOH a configuration error is always possible.
Given the new EU regulations since May, there's a very good chance that BA will be fined a very respectable amount - in the tens if not hundreds of millions of pounds. Certainly it's a good opportunity for us to see if such fines will be used to frighten companies into doing better. OTOH we have to accept that everyone gets burgled occasionally...
This means that they will be dealing with the legal side, and will have ensured that there are no issues. One of the advantages of being an employee.
Korean war vets lapped it up and offered anecdotes of their experiences to the show.
If the possibility of a violent response by the proles to language that does not call for violence is a legitimate reason for limiting free speech, then free speech has ceased to exist, because the fear of being charged with 'incitement' for what was merely strong language will be crippling.
Before WWII most people regarded fetuses as people, with the result that abortion could attract very serious punishments as a crime, and struggled to believe Jews were people. Nowadays the fashion has reversed in most countries, although the allegations of anti-semitism on the left in the UK does suggest it's not transitioned completely.
So who was right? There isn't a 'right' answer; it all boils down to your metaphysical beliefs, which may be INFORMED by science (when does the brain stem develop, when is the embryo old enough that an identical twin can no longer happen) but it's always your choice...
It's why they get caught in the first place. And, to be fair, the knowledge required to discover a secure alternative isn't trivial.
The UK loans system - where you pay a higher rate of income tax collected by the tax authorities - until you pay off your loan or 30 years have elapsed since graduation, when it disappears, is a better model here; if the doctors do well, they repay the loan rather than merely being subsidised permanently. If they choose a low paying medical career, they don't.
As a (former) public sector worker I accepted a lower rate of pay in exchange for very good pension when I retire. To suggest that tax payers have the right to rate on that contract because it is now inconvenient is evil; it's a breach of promise. If we're free to tear up our promises when they are no longer convenient, then the basis for society is largely gone, and certainly you can't expect your spouse to be faithful to you. Yes, going forward, public sector employers may be wise to alter the terms of their wage contract - but let's do it honestly, with pay rises for those losing pension rights.
OTOH I accept that unions have got legislators to agree pension rises as a way to pay their members more but without it appears on the books in the current financial year. However the idea that it's therefore right to claw that generosity back is to undermine any commitment to states being bound by contracts freely entered into. Yes, future pensions can be capped - but don't expect public sector workers not to strike to mark their resistance to a pay cut.
Shooting the guy who entered while she was dressing would have helped educate him and others for the future...
Something like Bill Gates winning a House of Representatives seat for which he didn't stand with 100% of the vote. Until something that visible occurs, this will remain a phony war.
Let's hope the EU keeps extracting money from Google till they get the message.
The rational solution is congestion pricing; you want to drive in Manhattan, you pay the government a lot of money. This means that the government gets the excess revenue, not the vultures who own taxi medallions - perhaps the most iniquitous thing I've ever seen in economics; I really thought it was an April Fools joke when I first heard about them.
Really. It's a great city - and I say that as a Brit. Don't let your prejudices deter you!
Le vin et les aliments sont magnifique
Let's get our priorities right!!
Unfortunately this requires a bureaucratic machine to respond to such subtleties. Clearly for someone with a concern for the appearance of their public space, graffiti removal IS meaningful. To brats for whom it is 'art', it would be punitive; finding something they would find meaningful will be challenging!
The UK supreme court has agreed that the police can tell a potential employer about a case where the accused was found not guilty. https://www.theguardian.com/uk...
Consider a few vital jobs: doctor, nurse, teacher - indeed all child and elder care, public transit driver, police officer, prison officer, judge, construction. All of those jobs are very real and need more than 2 hours a week. Given they constitute a substantial part of the economy, on their own they torpedo your argument about it being 2 hours a week.
But we should make them something they can take pride in; for example a small but significant contribution to the community such as removing graffiti or repairing roads, or even listening to children read in primary school, they could be really helpful.
Any implementation of UBI will be approximately revenue neutral, or it will be unaffordable - i.e. there will be increased taxes somewhere to pay for it. Therefore total demand will be the same. Now yes, some commodities will experience a rise in demand for them, but equally others - in this case the apartments that people who want to move into these ones - will see a fall in demand.
I get your point - but the 'revenue neutral' will, overall, result in no major shifts in prices.