At what point does arbitration enter into a situation like that? And why couldn't it be settled through the courts instead of mandating the arbitration clause?
I'm honestly curious how this would work.
Not a lawyer, but I was trained in First Amendment law as part of my degree.
The First Amendment does not apply to individuals or businesses limiting other individuals or businesses. First Amendment doesn't enter into this discussion. Contracts aren't speech. They're agreements between people, and the government does limit what types of things you can compel another person to do in a contract. Frequently, Congress has acted to limit asymetries of power... notice that this bill affects FORM CONTRACTS only... that means the ones that are created for mass signatures... if you want to have a personalized contract -- one where you sign and then a company rep personally countersigns -- then I think this doesn't apply. But for that last bit, you would need to check with a lawyer.
Breitbart was more widely *read*. Readership has no bearing on credibility. That's exactly the problem. You cannot derive whether they are a trustworthy site simply from the fact that many people trust them. Trustworthiness comes from having your statements vetted by other people -- you claim that X is true... can I independently demonstrate that X is true? If I cannot, your trustworthiness should decrease. The problem we are facing is that it instead sometimes *increases* because of the partisanship. Rather than say "Site Y claims X but no one else can validate X so Y must be wrong", we get people who say "Site Y claims X, no one else can validate X, so everyone else must be engaged in a coverup conspiracy" or some variation on that theme.
You have the choice to get in the car, same as today. If SDC is better than most humans --- and we're very close to that --- then most humans should be in an SDC. And the more SDCs there are, the fewer accidents because they all know how each other will react -- no sudden erratic changes of mind about lanes!
We have them. The point was the study done beforehand to see how bad the problem actually was. And making it illegal has helped, but it's still a pervasive problem.
Road traffic surveys for anti-texting laws deny that claim. Last I heard when my city was debating an anti-texting ordinance, about half of drivers are distracted to a degree sufficient to impair their response in an emergency. Our saving grace is that emergencies are relatively rare.
You should read non-fiction "The Robot's Rebellion." Ignore the preface of author rambling... the 8 core chapters are some of the most heavily footnoted text I've ever waded through detaining just how many guess-and-check shortcuts the human brain takes. The book lays out study after study, including some things you can try on your own, that pretty much denies any argument about humans having a serious advantage over computers in high-speed decision making. With deliberation, our brains are awesome. In the heat of the moment, we aren't even consistent in our heuristics.
My understanding is that they have massive bandwidth for all their normal traffic, but their *spare* bandwidth for surprise DDoS traffic was more limited, and this exceeded their spare unused capacity and it exceeded their $$$ for negotiating additional. If I'm misunderstanding something, please explain what I've missed.
Investors are the people who DON'T already have their money out of the company. The article claims they DO lose money -- just not as much as spending on security would cost them.
Those all mitigate, yes, but at the end of the day, the network can always generate a DDoS bigger than that can handle unless you control more bandwidth than the rest of the network.
They are incapable of dealing with the largest DDoS they've ever seen, double the previous record. There is no defense against a DDoS except bandwidth, so there's an upper bound that will take down *any* provider. Akamai is a high-end defender, but in this space, attackers have the clear upper hand.
Actually, it is exactly right. When moon is opposite side of Earth from sun (full moon) it pulls opposite the sun, stretching Earth. When it is on the same side as the sun (new moon), it adds maximally to the sun's own pull.
I don't have any stats to claim one way or the other. I was just explaining the nature of the dispute to the previous post who didn't seem to grasp what the argument was even about.
I've read research articles showing stats that these presentations do have an impact by getting guys just to think about their behavior. A surprising number (well, surprising to me) never have thought about how a woman might view their aggressive behavior, and they back off when it is brought up.
This matches my own anecdotal experience watching guys change their behavior after it is explained to them -- especially in a video that everyone has to see where they don't feel singled out (as with any correction, if you try telling it to a specific person then they get really defensive).
No, it doesn't fix everyone, but I'm pretty sure there's enough value to justify the presentations.
If you and the woman have equal skills, do you always win the coin toss?
If you do not have the skills, do you get the job over the woman who does have the skills?
Same pair of questions but for race instead of gender.
All of these situations are claimed to occur commonly in the tech industry.
No one should expect special treatment. What the women and minorities are saying is that white males currently are getting special treatment and they want that stopped. If the only way to correct the coin toss situation is by having quotas, then put in quotas. Now at least some of the time, the coin will have to go the other way. But the quotas are only after someone has passed the qualification bar.
Fixing the bias against competence is harder.
I'm not arguing for/against any tech, just saying that tax policy can shape industry and consumer behavior immensely, and it is those behaviors that need shaping in the climate change debate. So, yeah, WarJolt, I would agree that blindseer has provided yet another example for you to contemplate.
Why is it ridiculous? Shifts in tax policy have driven all sorts of things in our national and global behavior. Why would climate change be any different? I'm not saying it's the right solution, but it certainly is a solution that would work, based on the evidence of other venues. Look at what a shift in tax policy did to home ownership rates (drove it up massively during the 20th century, exactly as designed... for good or for ill, but exactly as designed by policy makers). Or to protection of rhinos worldwide (saved them from extinction by pricing the horns out of reach). Look what it is doing right now to the adoption rate of renewable energy sources. Lots of other examples.
Slashdot Mirror
At what point does arbitration enter into a situation like that? And why couldn't it be settled through the courts instead of mandating the arbitration clause? I'm honestly curious how this would work.
Not a lawyer, but I was trained in First Amendment law as part of my degree. The First Amendment does not apply to individuals or businesses limiting other individuals or businesses. First Amendment doesn't enter into this discussion. Contracts aren't speech. They're agreements between people, and the government does limit what types of things you can compel another person to do in a contract. Frequently, Congress has acted to limit asymetries of power... notice that this bill affects FORM CONTRACTS only ... that means the ones that are created for mass signatures... if you want to have a personalized contract -- one where you sign and then a company rep personally countersigns -- then I think this doesn't apply. But for that last bit, you would need to check with a lawyer.
The summary of the article explicitly mentioned the limits of the study and the need to broaden it. See final sentence. Nothing underhanded here.
Breitbart was more widely *read*. Readership has no bearing on credibility. That's exactly the problem. You cannot derive whether they are a trustworthy site simply from the fact that many people trust them. Trustworthiness comes from having your statements vetted by other people -- you claim that X is true... can I independently demonstrate that X is true? If I cannot, your trustworthiness should decrease. The problem we are facing is that it instead sometimes *increases* because of the partisanship. Rather than say "Site Y claims X but no one else can validate X so Y must be wrong", we get people who say "Site Y claims X, no one else can validate X, so everyone else must be engaged in a coverup conspiracy" or some variation on that theme.
Is this a good reason for Apple to remove the analog jack?
We'll have SDCs all over the roads within 10 years. We can pick this conversation up at that point.
You have the choice to get in the car, same as today. If SDC is better than most humans --- and we're very close to that --- then most humans should be in an SDC. And the more SDCs there are, the fewer accidents because they all know how each other will react -- no sudden erratic changes of mind about lanes!
We have them. The point was the study done beforehand to see how bad the problem actually was. And making it illegal has helped, but it's still a pervasive problem.
Road traffic surveys for anti-texting laws deny that claim. Last I heard when my city was debating an anti-texting ordinance, about half of drivers are distracted to a degree sufficient to impair their response in an emergency. Our saving grace is that emergencies are relatively rare.
You should read non-fiction "The Robot's Rebellion." Ignore the preface of author rambling... the 8 core chapters are some of the most heavily footnoted text I've ever waded through detaining just how many guess-and-check shortcuts the human brain takes. The book lays out study after study, including some things you can try on your own, that pretty much denies any argument about humans having a serious advantage over computers in high-speed decision making. With deliberation, our brains are awesome. In the heat of the moment, we aren't even consistent in our heuristics.
Useful information. I'd give you a +1 if I could.
My understanding is that they have massive bandwidth for all their normal traffic, but their *spare* bandwidth for surprise DDoS traffic was more limited, and this exceeded their spare unused capacity and it exceeded their $$$ for negotiating additional. If I'm misunderstanding something, please explain what I've missed.
Investors are the people who DON'T already have their money out of the company. The article claims they DO lose money -- just not as much as spending on security would cost them.
If Gov't is going to read our data anyway, at least they could provide the service of shielding it from everyone else? :-)
Those all mitigate, yes, but at the end of the day, the network can always generate a DDoS bigger than that can handle unless you control more bandwidth than the rest of the network.
They are incapable of dealing with the largest DDoS they've ever seen, double the previous record. There is no defense against a DDoS except bandwidth, so there's an upper bound that will take down *any* provider. Akamai is a high-end defender, but in this space, attackers have the clear upper hand.
Actually, it is exactly right. When moon is opposite side of Earth from sun (full moon) it pulls opposite the sun, stretching Earth. When it is on the same side as the sun (new moon), it adds maximally to the sun's own pull.
I don't have any stats to claim one way or the other. I was just explaining the nature of the dispute to the previous post who didn't seem to grasp what the argument was even about.
I've read research articles showing stats that these presentations do have an impact by getting guys just to think about their behavior. A surprising number (well, surprising to me) never have thought about how a woman might view their aggressive behavior, and they back off when it is brought up. This matches my own anecdotal experience watching guys change their behavior after it is explained to them -- especially in a video that everyone has to see where they don't feel singled out (as with any correction, if you try telling it to a specific person then they get really defensive). No, it doesn't fix everyone, but I'm pretty sure there's enough value to justify the presentations.
If you and the woman have equal skills, do you always win the coin toss? If you do not have the skills, do you get the job over the woman who does have the skills? Same pair of questions but for race instead of gender. All of these situations are claimed to occur commonly in the tech industry. No one should expect special treatment. What the women and minorities are saying is that white males currently are getting special treatment and they want that stopped. If the only way to correct the coin toss situation is by having quotas, then put in quotas. Now at least some of the time, the coin will have to go the other way. But the quotas are only after someone has passed the qualification bar. Fixing the bias against competence is harder.
The problem is, it only takes a much smaller number who disagree and have some funding to create the problem.
I'm not arguing for/against any tech, just saying that tax policy can shape industry and consumer behavior immensely, and it is those behaviors that need shaping in the climate change debate. So, yeah, WarJolt, I would agree that blindseer has provided yet another example for you to contemplate.
Why is it ridiculous? Shifts in tax policy have driven all sorts of things in our national and global behavior. Why would climate change be any different? I'm not saying it's the right solution, but it certainly is a solution that would work, based on the evidence of other venues. Look at what a shift in tax policy did to home ownership rates (drove it up massively during the 20th century, exactly as designed... for good or for ill, but exactly as designed by policy makers). Or to protection of rhinos worldwide (saved them from extinction by pricing the horns out of reach). Look what it is doing right now to the adoption rate of renewable energy sources. Lots of other examples.
Patches may be available quickly. Whether those get applied or not is a different story.
We *cleanly* burned oil. That's a big deal.