I remember reading that people would post negative reviews on Yelp! and ask restaurant owners to pay to remove them. I don't know about the US, but I'd prefer if this nasty tactic isn't protected by the Constitution in Europe. I even found the link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.... What do you think about that? According to your First Amendment, this man has a right to do that. I'm glad that at least in Europe, a restaurant owner can drag this kind of person to court.
The summary says the fine was imposed for defamation - "similar proceedings for defamation", etc. Btw, how do you distinguish between defamation/slander and critics in the US?
I made a JavaScript script that auto-clicks the "Show more comments" button every second, and I would leave it for a while. It can easily uncover 2000-3000 comments. It makes Chrome use up all the RAM though, I can't believe how much RAM you need to display a few thousand lines of text.
Writer? Am I the only one who thought that saying "writer" is a great euphemism for unemployed? This might turn out to be a great vacation that ends when he runs out of money.
I think you might have misunderstood me - I believe that Global Warming is happening, I just just believe that other people will not believe in it until a drought causes a crop failure that causes a famine, or a few cities sink. Nobody will move because of warnings by scientists, only when things are already happening.
About the CEO, firing people is different than layoffs. You fire to keep discipline, the layoffs are when you just have more employees than you need (or think you need).
When there are actual consequences. When there are a few draughts, a few failed crops, several hurricanes in a single year, AND NOT BEFORE. That's the truth. Actions will be taken after Global Warming starts delivering on its threats.
You forget that it affects morale. If an employee that is unproductive but well liked by the rest is let go, it might hurt the productivity of the rest in some way (people become more likely to quit if disgruntled, or they just start shirking), so it could still be negative - not because of his productivity, but because how it affects the rest.
Sometimes I avoid enumerating all the caveats simply because it is laborious, it's lawyerspeak. Yes, you could influence someone - perhaps 10, perhaps even 100 people. But it's still trying to warm the ocean with a candlelight. You need to influence billions, not 10 people. Only laws can do that, leading by example will never amount to anything.
That's why it can't work - we need a scifi World Government, because it needs to be able to make everyone behave - not 1, not 10 people, and not even a single country - anything short of everyone on board will fail, and by everyone I mean everyone in the world.
What's the point of cutting down your own use? You won't make a difference. And your actions don't influence anyone else. If you're the only one who cuts down, and the other 6,999,999,999 people don't, then it won't matter, global warming won't be stopped. And if you don't cut down, but 6,999,999,999 do, then global warming will be stopped without you. What you do personally does not matter, because it does not determine what the other 6,999,999,999 people. Their decisions are not bound to yours. Cutting down can help if you can decide it for 7 billion people, not just for yourself.
TL;DR It doesn't make a difference, except as posturing.
Is it still a thing? I get Slashdot classic right now, and I thought they had given up on this thing. See how it looks for me - http://imgur.com/k8JEJsU
No it is not. The original claim was "Bitcoin just lost 92% of it's value", when in fact, it has not.
The "bitcoins" in Mt. Gox are not, in fact, bitcoins, they are account balances, which means promissory notes by Mt Gox to pay out this amount of bitcoins.
Those who moved out quickly probably didn't lose that much. They should have moved out as soon as problems with withdrawing happened. Maybe give them 2-3 days in case it was a technical problem.
Well, you can't say it was unexpected. There have been problems with Mt. Gox for months now, ever since dollar withdrawals were stopped, so anyone using them was doing it at their own risk.
Cautious people would have sold their trapped dollars at a discount while they still could, and taken out all their bitcoins, so they wouldn't have lost too much. The unwary... well, they'll pay some stupid-tax.
Most people around me say it's better to keep your coins in an online wallet because it's easier to set-up, but I didn't do that, because then it would be the exchange that controls my money.
If people had kept their bitcoins in offline wallets, Mt. Gox wouldn't have been able to take them.
It's worse than that. Most of those users are not paying anything at all. WhatsApp was free until recently, and now they are free for the first year and after that you have to subscribe. I don't know how many users are paying but they had $20 million dollars revenue for 2013.
Now, I can't find info, but IF they introduced the fee less than one year ago, then it's a time bomb, and there's no telling how much users they'll have left after everyone has to pay. Free apps always have more users than paid apps, even when you pay a little.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading that people would post negative reviews on Yelp! and ask restaurant owners to pay to remove them. I don't know about the US, but I'd prefer if this nasty tactic isn't protected by the Constitution in Europe. I even found the link - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.... What do you think about that? According to your First Amendment, this man has a right to do that. I'm glad that at least in Europe, a restaurant owner can drag this kind of person to court.
The summary says the fine was imposed for defamation - "similar proceedings for defamation", etc. Btw, how do you distinguish between defamation/slander and critics in the US?
Will they now restore the nuked accounts? Was her account restored later? Maybe they've restored it now.
I made a JavaScript script that auto-clicks the "Show more comments" button every second, and I would leave it for a while. It can easily uncover 2000-3000 comments. It makes Chrome use up all the RAM though, I can't believe how much RAM you need to display a few thousand lines of text.
More like no Freedom of Defamation. Doesn't the US have laws against slander too?
Agreed, I was totally planning to take a plane to France to go dine in that restaurant, but now they've lost my business.
Writer? Am I the only one who thought that saying "writer" is a great euphemism for unemployed? This might turn out to be a great vacation that ends when he runs out of money.
Well, they have a problem to solve - namely, that they need money and fame.
I think you might have misunderstood me - I believe that Global Warming is happening, I just just believe that other people will not believe in it until a drought causes a crop failure that causes a famine, or a few cities sink. Nobody will move because of warnings by scientists, only when things are already happening.
About the CEO, firing people is different than layoffs. You fire to keep discipline, the layoffs are when you just have more employees than you need (or think you need).
When there are actual consequences. When there are a few draughts, a few failed crops, several hurricanes in a single year, AND NOT BEFORE. That's the truth. Actions will be taken after Global Warming starts delivering on its threats.
You forget that it affects morale. If an employee that is unproductive but well liked by the rest is let go, it might hurt the productivity of the rest in some way (people become more likely to quit if disgruntled, or they just start shirking), so it could still be negative - not because of his productivity, but because how it affects the rest.
They went a fifth lane when that wasn't really a good option (fourth lane being Android).
OK, MeeGo would have been 3rd lane, which were the other 2?
Sometimes I avoid enumerating all the caveats simply because it is laborious, it's lawyerspeak. Yes, you could influence someone - perhaps 10, perhaps even 100 people. But it's still trying to warm the ocean with a candlelight. You need to influence billions, not 10 people. Only laws can do that, leading by example will never amount to anything.
That's why it can't work - we need a scifi World Government, because it needs to be able to make everyone behave - not 1, not 10 people, and not even a single country - anything short of everyone on board will fail, and by everyone I mean everyone in the world.
What's the point of cutting down your own use? You won't make a difference. And your actions don't influence anyone else. If you're the only one who cuts down, and the other 6,999,999,999 people don't, then it won't matter, global warming won't be stopped. And if you don't cut down, but 6,999,999,999 do, then global warming will be stopped without you. What you do personally does not matter, because it does not determine what the other 6,999,999,999 people. Their decisions are not bound to yours. Cutting down can help if you can decide it for 7 billion people, not just for yourself.
TL;DR It doesn't make a difference, except as posturing.
I'd say "So they know those financials. So what?" It's not like they got the nuclear arsenal codes.
Is it still a thing? I get Slashdot classic right now, and I thought they had given up on this thing. See how it looks for me - http://imgur.com/k8JEJsU
Lol, password in the URL in cleartext!
The profits from the book will be used towards building a Space Elevator.
No it is not. The original claim was "Bitcoin just lost 92% of it's value", when in fact, it has not.
The "bitcoins" in Mt. Gox are not, in fact, bitcoins, they are account balances, which means promissory notes by Mt Gox to pay out this amount of bitcoins.
Those who moved out quickly probably didn't lose that much. They should have moved out as soon as problems with withdrawing happened. Maybe give them 2-3 days in case it was a technical problem.
Which wallet is that? Why do the transactions have equal amounts (+10000 BTC then -10000 BTC, etc.)?
Well, you can't say it was unexpected. There have been problems with Mt. Gox for months now, ever since dollar withdrawals were stopped, so anyone using them was doing it at their own risk.
Cautious people would have sold their trapped dollars at a discount while they still could, and taken out all their bitcoins, so they wouldn't have lost too much. The unwary... well, they'll pay some stupid-tax.
Most people around me say it's better to keep your coins in an online wallet because it's easier to set-up, but I didn't do that, because then it would be the exchange that controls my money.
If people had kept their bitcoins in offline wallets, Mt. Gox wouldn't have been able to take them.
It's worse than that. Most of those users are not paying anything at all. WhatsApp was free until recently, and now they are free for the first year and after that you have to subscribe. I don't know how many users are paying but they had $20 million dollars revenue for 2013.
Now, I can't find info, but IF they introduced the fee less than one year ago, then it's a time bomb, and there's no telling how much users they'll have left after everyone has to pay. Free apps always have more users than paid apps, even when you pay a little.