You can solve this problem by changing this to: "Hi, this is Alexa (or Google whatever) calling on behalf of a client and would like to book..."
What problem? You jumped straight to the solution, but reading through the summary and the posts here first we really should define if this is a problem at all. I know what is a problem: reduced efficacy due to people having bias against talking to computers. If this increases the hang-up rate and makes it less useful than that would be a problem.
Because getting jerked around by a computer sucks.
Implying you're getting jerked around. If this computer is no different than a human, then hang up on them if you're being jerked around. Or maybe they are making an appointment with you for their owner.
Exactly. Reselling is a red-herring. Hell it's only needed because some gambling laws exclusively define value that way. But the reality is that parting with money for something which may net you disappointment, or may net you joy is inherently no different whether that item has value or not. The results are the same: potential endorphin release for a good reward encourages you to do it again gamifying an addiction all the while parting with money.
None of them have their own credit cards and their parents sure as hell aren't going to let them run up massive charges on theirs or even let them use it.
You clearly don't have children. Actually based on this comment I'm not even sure that you weren't grown in a lab and brought to life as a fully functioning adult.
13 year olds can choose to not smoke cigarettes, or do drugs too right? We should really unban everything.
That's the thing about gambling laws. For the most part they don't exist to stop gambling, but exist to stop a vulnerable group who are incapable of understanding their meaning of their choices from getting addicted to gambling from gambling.
You want to add gambling to video games? Fine, allow those video games only to be sold and played in casinos or ban the real world consequences of the action (i.e. don't charge for loot boxes).
I have never failed to secure any data you sent me, or abused it. I assume you then trust me with your data
Yes that's the nature of trust, except I don't trust you. I have no evidence to backup that trust.
Accidental data leaks are just as bad as deliberate security failures
You are perfectly right.
As far as "abuse" goes, how would I detect if Microsoft or Google or Amazon was abusing my data?
It may be that those companies have excellent security (although no security is perfect) and have never abused data. That doesn't mean they've been proven trustworthy.
And that last part of your sentence doesn't agree with the rest of your post. You see the untrustworthy act doesn't need to be on *your* data. With these companies handling the likes of Fortune 500 companies, along with many zetabytes worth of customer data mistrust and abuse on any scale would have come to light by now.
If I show you a google search of my name and say "see I've never been in the news for losing data, you can trust me" you would be right to not trust me. Just as I don't trust you for not having mishandled data I haven't given you. When the same happens for a company that handles the sheer volume and the mind-boggling number of customers as the big three the same example carries a very different weight.
Incidentally this is precisely why in industry customer references carry a lot of weight. "Hey we have new shiny thing." "Okay that's great but my stuff is important so show me other customers which have your new shiny thing in service, and let me talk to them."
Ironic. You picked the one technical spec between the mediums no one except for some classical music lovers gives a shit about. CDs with 100dB S/N? Try finding a modern song that uses more than the top 20dB. Try find someone who cares when you point that out.
That's worse than nothing in my opinion. A typical Microsoft "solution".
This typical Microsoft "solution": "New files created within Notepad will use Windows line ending (CRLF) by default, but it will now be possible to view, edit, and print existing files, correctly maintaining the file’s current line ending format."
Well Microsoft can't fix stupid people. Look on the bright side, due to this issue someone learned something, even brighter would be if you consulted at the time, because then that also translated to billable hours:)
The problem is that it will now read LF, but any new line you put into the text will still have a CR+LF.
So don't edit python scripts. Seriously though if you're doing something sensitive to CR vs CR+LF then Notepad is the wrong thing to use to edit a file and you'll know it's wrong too. The biggest problem with CR vs CR+LF is being unable to read files (a universal problem) and not that the LF will break the system (a problem that affects an incredibly minor set of possible scenarios exposed to an incredible minor part of the userbase and a part of the user base that is a) most equipped to handle it, and b) likely refuses to use something like notepad anyway ).
That's worse than nothing in my opinion. A typical Microsoft "solution".
Sounds like your opinion may be moderated by applying the genetic fallacy to the solution.
You cannot be serious, what professional developer in his right mind would use Notepad?
Close to 100% of them. Just not necessarily while developing. Kind of like just because vi is my editor of choice doesn't mean that I don't frequently end up on a test system opening something in nano or *shudders* emacs.
Developers especially frequently send files cross platforms onto test systems they don't administer and need to use a standard OS image. God forbid they remotely access a file on another system, or their main OS from another OS.
You can change some settings force it to look like normal, live with the ribbon, but more fundamentally: It isn't the default text editor. None of this is really a problem, it's just irritating: Help some, open explorer, double click, "crap", close notepad, right click, open in word pad, change the view mode and the wordwrap settings, keep doing what it is you were doing in the first place.
Notepad not screwing up every file you use it to read is just one less hassle. It doesn't solve an unsolvable problem.
the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal
No. We assume things will stop getting worse, not go back to "normal". "Normal" in this case rests on credibility. That will take years to build up again because ultimately the world understands that while Trump is a nutcase, he is a nutcase elected by 150million people. Replacing Trump with someone fit to be president does not buy back credibility. Not until several election cycles have gone and the Trump mistake isn't repeated.
Treaties are long term agreements. Why would you negotiate anything long term with a country that shows at a whim it will not abide by them?
First words out of your mouth when talking to law enforcement are as follows, "I want my lawyer."
This is a sad reflection of policing in the USA. It's great advice, but not necessarily universal. Follow it in the USA, but don't treat police like your enemy everywhere in the world.
If it's on a public facing server it's "fair game"
No it's not.... I don't agree with it, but just accessing information not intended for you is illegal in some jurisdictions. The outcome of those cases is very similar to what happens when you hit someone with your car. Did you accidentally bump into them? Did you attempt to murder them?
I think the point is - intent is meaningless if you don't actually break the law.
The GP's point is that many laws are contingent on intent to determine if they were actually broken. Not every law, just some. There's no law against reading a road sign at all criminal intent or not.
However there are many laws that you would be skirting around every day and the only thing causing you not to break those laws is criminal intent.
Notepad is a small simple text editor that exists because occasionally you might need to edit some text files (typically for config files or something).
Just because it's simple and occasionally used doesn't mean it can't be annoying. Also just because there are alternatives doesn't mean I'm going to install them on every computer I touch (or even can install them).... And Wordpad is now a mess.
you are sitting in a part of the world where you are probed... You simply don't see your life being an open book to your government as a problem.
Err. No. That is the exact opposite of what I said. An ad hominem followed by a strawman in one paragraph, you're quite good at this whole not having an argument thing.
I understand the world "totalitarian" just fine. It's what you are,
Ahhh so you have no argument and fall back to ad hominem attacks.
Nowhere did I claim it does.
And I quote: "Being fined into oblivion for being on the web by an entity that you have never had interaction with, should be problematic for everyone."
I claimed (correctly)
And you have provided nothing to back up that claim at all.
I'm done. It's quite clear you don't have a clue how this law works, or other laws in the EU for that matter, and can't even follow your own conversation that you have derailed with nothing by ad hominem attacks ever since I called you out to display a burden of proof.
The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".
No you didn't. You reversed my non-commutative argument which is the logical fallacy. My original one was just fine.
Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious.
No that's not how the English language works. The statement I made makes absolutely no claims about the nature of profits at all.
We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.
This I completely agree with, but it is also completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything we have said so far other than being an example of a logical fallacy against the topic we are discussing.
You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount.
The ability for someone to repay a loan has nothing to do with how rich or poor they are. You're on fire! This is another false cause fallacy.
They prefer to work with people who have money
If they did so they wouldn't be working in field that statistically is made up predominantly of poor people and minority groups. To claim that this is factually false, show me statistics where the PIC isn't entirely skewed towards poor and minority groups. Here's some bedtime reading: https://www.aclu.org/sites/def... Yes it's 64 pages but there's a lot of pictures.
The other companies did not face the same risk, and so their standard practices do not apply.
Don't use an article to start your sentence. It doesn't help your case when you compare one company to all companies. Instead realise that there are actually many car companies out there with self driving cars, and many of which have the same standard setup, with same hardware also being tested on roads, which ultimately for some of them does make them face exactly the same risk.
If the risk is the same than standard practices most definitely do apply. That is the very definition of not being negligent.
The other companies required 2 orders of magnitude fewer interventions.
That is operational data during experiment, not the risk of running the experiment. Incidentally your argument is that Uber has double the experience of successful interventions and the court would just love to see that as an example of a company that has a mitigation in place for their risk. Successful interventions at a high rate is an incredibly strong defense against negligence.
Heck, Uber did not even have the system check if the safety driver was doing their job! Again, common practice in other industries where safety operators are in use.
Does the competition? Please show me this. I haven't heard of any of the competition use any kind of alertness detection on their safety drivers. I have on the other hand seen camera interviews from within Wayemo cars where the safety driver spends a lot of time not looking at the road. Heck the system you're proposing is barely rolled out to normal drivers and also not required by the regulator. Speaking of: Meeting regulation requirements is another defense against negligence.
To be clear about this: Uber killed someone. Their process was wrong. Their CEO is morally in the shit for his rushed push into the field. But you are miles away from proving criminal negligence against the CEO. This wouldn't make it past a summary judgement against you in court. There may be some people who could be criminally held liable for something, but ultimately the one thrown under the bus there will most likely be the safety driver who wasn't doing their job since working for another company is actually NOT a defense against negligence.
Slashdot Mirror
You can solve this problem by changing this to: "Hi, this is Alexa (or Google whatever) calling on behalf of a client and would like to book..."
What problem? You jumped straight to the solution, but reading through the summary and the posts here first we really should define if this is a problem at all. I know what is a problem: reduced efficacy due to people having bias against talking to computers. If this increases the hang-up rate and makes it less useful than that would be a problem.
Because getting jerked around by a computer sucks.
Implying you're getting jerked around. If this computer is no different than a human, then hang up on them if you're being jerked around. Or maybe they are making an appointment with you for their owner.
Do you hate secretaries too?
Exactly. Reselling is a red-herring. Hell it's only needed because some gambling laws exclusively define value that way. But the reality is that parting with money for something which may net you disappointment, or may net you joy is inherently no different whether that item has value or not. The results are the same: potential endorphin release for a good reward encourages you to do it again gamifying an addiction all the while parting with money.
None of them have their own credit cards and their parents sure as hell aren't going to let them run up massive charges on theirs or even let them use it.
You clearly don't have children. Actually based on this comment I'm not even sure that you weren't grown in a lab and brought to life as a fully functioning adult.
13 year olds can choose to not smoke cigarettes, or do drugs too right? We should really unban everything.
That's the thing about gambling laws. For the most part they don't exist to stop gambling, but exist to stop a vulnerable group who are incapable of understanding their meaning of their choices from getting addicted to gambling from gambling.
You want to add gambling to video games? Fine, allow those video games only to be sold and played in casinos or ban the real world consequences of the action (i.e. don't charge for loot boxes).
I have never failed to secure any data you sent me, or abused it. I assume you then trust me with your data
Yes that's the nature of trust, except I don't trust you. I have no evidence to backup that trust.
Accidental data leaks are just as bad as deliberate security failures
You are perfectly right.
As far as "abuse" goes, how would I detect if Microsoft or Google or Amazon was abusing my data?
It may be that those companies have excellent security (although no security is perfect) and have never abused data. That doesn't mean they've been proven trustworthy.
And that last part of your sentence doesn't agree with the rest of your post. You see the untrustworthy act doesn't need to be on *your* data. With these companies handling the likes of Fortune 500 companies, along with many zetabytes worth of customer data mistrust and abuse on any scale would have come to light by now.
If I show you a google search of my name and say "see I've never been in the news for losing data, you can trust me" you would be right to not trust me. Just as I don't trust you for not having mishandled data I haven't given you.
When the same happens for a company that handles the sheer volume and the mind-boggling number of customers as the big three the same example carries a very different weight.
Incidentally this is precisely why in industry customer references carry a lot of weight. "Hey we have new shiny thing." "Okay that's great but my stuff is important so show me other customers which have your new shiny thing in service, and let me talk to them."
Ironic. You picked the one technical spec between the mediums no one except for some classical music lovers gives a shit about. CDs with 100dB S/N? Try finding a modern song that uses more than the top 20dB. Try find someone who cares when you point that out.
That's worse than nothing in my opinion. A typical Microsoft "solution".
This typical Microsoft "solution": "New files created within Notepad will use Windows line ending (CRLF) by default, but it will now be possible to view, edit, and print existing files, correctly maintaining the file’s current line ending format."
It actually is funny to see prejudice just blow up in people's faces.
https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.c...
Well Microsoft can't fix stupid people. Look on the bright side, due to this issue someone learned something, even brighter would be if you consulted at the time, because then that also translated to billable hours :)
Guess they always assumed nobody use notepad?
Or maybe they are planning on screwing up wordpad even more. :-/
The problem is that it will now read LF, but any new line you put into the text will still have a CR+LF.
So don't edit python scripts. Seriously though if you're doing something sensitive to CR vs CR+LF then Notepad is the wrong thing to use to edit a file and you'll know it's wrong too. The biggest problem with CR vs CR+LF is being unable to read files (a universal problem) and not that the LF will break the system (a problem that affects an incredibly minor set of possible scenarios exposed to an incredible minor part of the userbase and a part of the user base that is a) most equipped to handle it, and b) likely refuses to use something like notepad anyway ).
That's worse than nothing in my opinion. A typical Microsoft "solution".
Sounds like your opinion may be moderated by applying the genetic fallacy to the solution.
They're just here for the arguments.
No they're not. :-)
You cannot be serious, what professional developer in his right mind would use Notepad?
Close to 100% of them. Just not necessarily while developing. Kind of like just because vi is my editor of choice doesn't mean that I don't frequently end up on a test system opening something in nano or *shudders* emacs.
Developers especially frequently send files cross platforms onto test systems they don't administer and need to use a standard OS image. God forbid they remotely access a file on another system, or their main OS from another OS.
it is a must have on your usb flash drive
It's faster to download it and run it as a portable than it is to mail a USB drive to the computer you're supporting.
Know what's even faster? Having the default text editor able to display text correctly.
Nothing really. It just isn't the program it used to be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You can change some settings force it to look like normal, live with the ribbon, but more fundamentally: It isn't the default text editor. None of this is really a problem, it's just irritating: Help some, open explorer, double click, "crap", close notepad, right click, open in word pad, change the view mode and the wordwrap settings, keep doing what it is you were doing in the first place.
Notepad not screwing up every file you use it to read is just one less hassle. It doesn't solve an unsolvable problem.
the rest of the world will breathe a collective sigh and assume things go back to normal
No. We assume things will stop getting worse, not go back to "normal". "Normal" in this case rests on credibility. That will take years to build up again because ultimately the world understands that while Trump is a nutcase, he is a nutcase elected by 150million people. Replacing Trump with someone fit to be president does not buy back credibility. Not until several election cycles have gone and the Trump mistake isn't repeated.
Treaties are long term agreements. Why would you negotiate anything long term with a country that shows at a whim it will not abide by them?
Other than the people maintaining it, who really gives a shit what language/framework it's built with?
144 Slashdot posters evidently...
First words out of your mouth when talking to law enforcement are as follows, "I want my lawyer."
This is a sad reflection of policing in the USA. It's great advice, but not necessarily universal. Follow it in the USA, but don't treat police like your enemy everywhere in the world.
If it's on a public facing server it's "fair game"
No it's not. ... I don't agree with it, but just accessing information not intended for you is illegal in some jurisdictions. The outcome of those cases is very similar to what happens when you hit someone with your car. Did you accidentally bump into them? Did you attempt to murder them?
I think the point is - intent is meaningless if you don't actually break the law.
The GP's point is that many laws are contingent on intent to determine if they were actually broken. Not every law, just some. There's no law against reading a road sign at all criminal intent or not.
However there are many laws that you would be skirting around every day and the only thing causing you not to break those laws is criminal intent.
Notepad is a small simple text editor that exists because occasionally you might need to edit some text files (typically for config files or something).
Just because it's simple and occasionally used doesn't mean it can't be annoying. Also just because there are alternatives doesn't mean I'm going to install them on every computer I touch (or even can install them). ... And Wordpad is now a mess.
All users caring about line endings had probably migrated to Notepad++ 10 years ago, right ?
And yet this is a godsend when working on other people's machines which *don't* have Notepad++
Even wordpad sucks these days.
you are sitting in a part of the world where you are probed ... You simply don't see your life being an open book to your government as a problem.
Err. No. That is the exact opposite of what I said. An ad hominem followed by a strawman in one paragraph, you're quite good at this whole not having an argument thing.
I understand the world "totalitarian" just fine. It's what you are,
Ahhh so you have no argument and fall back to ad hominem attacks.
Nowhere did I claim it does.
And I quote: "Being fined into oblivion for being on the web by an entity that you have never had interaction with, should be problematic for everyone."
I claimed (correctly)
And you have provided nothing to back up that claim at all.
I'm done. It's quite clear you don't have a clue how this law works, or other laws in the EU for that matter, and can't even follow your own conversation that you have derailed with nothing by ad hominem attacks ever since I called you out to display a burden of proof.
Have a good day.
The fallacious logic I repeated is YOURS. *YOU* said "if they didn't make obscene profits it wouldn't be contentious".
No you didn't. You reversed my non-commutative argument which is the logical fallacy. My original one was just fine.
Your proof that they must make obscene profits is that they are contentious.
No that's not how the English language works. The statement I made makes absolutely no claims about the nature of profits at all.
We can see from the example of abortion doctors and many, many other things that contention does not in any way prove or imply anything at all about profits.
This I completely agree with, but it is also completely irrelevant and has nothing to do with anything we have said so far other than being an example of a logical fallacy against the topic we are discussing.
You then imply that bail bonds "target the poor" which is factually false - bondsmen require proof that the purchaser can pay the insured amount.
The ability for someone to repay a loan has nothing to do with how rich or poor they are.
You're on fire! This is another false cause fallacy.
They prefer to work with people who have money
If they did so they wouldn't be working in field that statistically is made up predominantly of poor people and minority groups. To claim that this is factually false, show me statistics where the PIC isn't entirely skewed towards poor and minority groups. Here's some bedtime reading: https://www.aclu.org/sites/def... Yes it's 64 pages but there's a lot of pictures.
The other companies did not face the same risk, and so their standard practices do not apply.
Don't use an article to start your sentence. It doesn't help your case when you compare one company to all companies. Instead realise that there are actually many car companies out there with self driving cars, and many of which have the same standard setup, with same hardware also being tested on roads, which ultimately for some of them does make them face exactly the same risk.
If the risk is the same than standard practices most definitely do apply. That is the very definition of not being negligent.
The other companies required 2 orders of magnitude fewer interventions.
That is operational data during experiment, not the risk of running the experiment. Incidentally your argument is that Uber has double the experience of successful interventions and the court would just love to see that as an example of a company that has a mitigation in place for their risk. Successful interventions at a high rate is an incredibly strong defense against negligence.
Heck, Uber did not even have the system check if the safety driver was doing their job! Again, common practice in other industries where safety operators are in use.
Does the competition? Please show me this. I haven't heard of any of the competition use any kind of alertness detection on their safety drivers. I have on the other hand seen camera interviews from within Wayemo cars where the safety driver spends a lot of time not looking at the road. Heck the system you're proposing is barely rolled out to normal drivers and also not required by the regulator. Speaking of: Meeting regulation requirements is another defense against negligence.
To be clear about this: Uber killed someone. Their process was wrong. Their CEO is morally in the shit for his rushed push into the field. But you are miles away from proving criminal negligence against the CEO. This wouldn't make it past a summary judgement against you in court. There may be some people who could be criminally held liable for something, but ultimately the one thrown under the bus there will most likely be the safety driver who wasn't doing their job since working for another company is actually NOT a defense against negligence.