You have 20/20 hindsight right now. You KNOW that those airliners were hijacked and you KNOW that they were going to cause more destruction than just flying around. What was known at the time of the incident was far different than what you know now.
Following 9/11, in Chicago, there was an incident where that guy was trying to light his shoes. I was working in the suburbs at the time, and recall hearing a pair of air cracking booms out of nowhere. When the confusion was settled and the news was revealed, it became apparent that those booms were a pair of fighter jets tearing into Chicago airspace to play escort to that airliner.
To me, that tells me that we were and are capable of responding appropriately to air defense even within the borders of the US. What it also tells me is that, if anyone knew that those planes were hijacked before they hit the towers, they probably expected them to be flown elsewhere, not used as weapons. Don't forget that the terrorists knew how to fly a plane, and once in control of the cockpit, it is unlikely that any radio communications would have indicated a problem. Only flight position would have betrayed a problem, but as you may recall, we've had airliners overfly their landing site and continue for.. what, an hour or two, without communication, before a response was sent.
Its easy to see problems that have already happened. It's less easy to see problems before they occur.
Yes, the net result for the very healthy people is that they are vacation days that do not demand significant announcement prior to use. The drawback is that if you need them later and have spent too many on 'I want a day off tomorrow', then you're taking vacation or no pay.
The migraine example was just that, an example. I've had illnesses that hit me hard, running a 104 degree fever, and the next day.. feeling well enough to go to work. I've had that only twice that I can recall so far, so where is the documentation required by my doctor?
Injury should be covered under Workman's comp or short term disability. Of course, that also depends on your role in the workforce.
My whole point about the parent's example was that use of vacation for 'short term illness' is not because that's what it should or shouldn't be used for, but to prevent the employee from using all the vacation time at once, and to prevent the use of sick time all together (unless you qualify for what would otherwise, in my jobs, be called short term disability). It is a net win for the employer (more worked hours for those paid) and loss for the employee (a benefit that is of no use is not a benefit). It has far less to do with actually preventing abuse of sick time off.
When I refer to worker's rights, I don't refer to restrictions. I refer to minimums. A minimum of 15 minutes every 5 hours for breaks, for instance. Is that a restriction, or is that a guarantee that you will have at least time to get up, stretch, move a round, and do something personal every 2 hours (or so)? I don't know where you get restrictions from. As for letting potential employees negotiate the full terms of their own employment, often times what the employer has is far more valuable to the employee than the employee is to the employer. Hundreds of candidates may be viable for a particular job, but perhaps that potential employee only has that one job offer on the table. That is not a strong position to negotiate from as an employee, and I would imagine most employers are well aware of this fact by now. Ask for too much (or anything at all), and they simply move on to the next candidate who won't ask beyond the offer.
I also said nothing about being able to live without labor, but in modern society, there generally isn't enough land for everyone to produce enough food on their own to eat for a full month, let alone a full year. In order to survive, you need a job, monetized labor as you put it, in order to buy the aspects of survival that you need, and hopefully some luxuries that you want too. Because of this state, having a job isn't so much a want as a must have, and if you are forced into the job market to survive, you are, in effect, slave labor. You just aren't owned by any one company.
Workers rights are about balancing two opposing forces. The rights of workers to be free from abuse and indentured servitude, and the rights of business to 'contract' for labor. Right now, with nothing on the table protecting the workers, then business is allowed (and often does) trample over workers in their pursuit of profit. No significant rise in wages for the middle class in America for some time, despite rising costs. It's nice that employers offer benefits like time off, but that's only because if they didn't, others that did would gain more valuable employees.
Besides, it makes perfect sense to request, codified into law, time off for breaks and sick time, workplace protections, etc. When you have happy employees, you have productive employees. Employers tend to be stupid about seeking short term gains over long term. I suggest you review some of the atrocities of industry, lack of protections prior to things like OSHA. I'll give you one suggestion, "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. The employers don't care, and won't unless they are given good reason to.
How nice that your employer lets you take a vacation day when you have a migraine so bad that you can't even see the light of day. Tomorrow you'll be fine, but today, it's vacation. Get out and enjoy it!
The reason for doing that is because they know that people will sometimes be down with a day or two illness, but be fine later. If they can burn up that pool of vacation time then, then they won't have to worry about the employee taking that time off later. The net result? I'm sure you probably have more people in your workplace with contagious diseases than would otherwise be if they were allowed to stay home that day and not infect the rest of the workplace. Great call on the employer's part. Now, instead of being down one person for a day or two, now they'll be down several people for several days as the illness runs its course through their workforce.
While that scenario is overly simplified, it is probably far more common than to have someone need to take sick time for long enough that a doctor needs to be called.
My employer has a different simple solution. They call it sick/personal time. You can use it at your discretion, but if you use it for personal days and then get sick, you get to take it unpaid, and that's really no fun. It allows us employees to meter when we need to take a day for our mental welfare and become productive again. It also has that hefty drawback that we, as employees, try to avoid.
Wow, what a totally 'me first' attitude. Let me guess, you own your own business and don't want to have to provide these things to your employees?
Let's go to the extreme. People getting murdered around you doesn't affect you if you're not an incompetent moron to get caught in that situation, no reason to make rules for that sort of thing, is there? Oh woe, if you made murder illegal, you'd have to spend money on police, and that'd just waste your taxes on something that gives you personally no benefit. Can't have that.
Much as we don't like to acknowledge it, the working class of the US is pretty much slave labor. We can't really live on our own without a job, so we are required to get one in order to live. If you happen to be a rare commodity and know something special, then maybe you can dictate terms. The majority cannot. Much of the work done in the US is menial in some way, shape, or form, and most positions are replaceable with a bit of training. This leaves us a conundrum about how to treat our workforce.
Worker's rights helps ensure the general welfare of our society. Not welfare like getting paid because you're poor, but welfare like you're healthy and well rested, able to think clearly, and so on. When people are stressed, all manner of bad thing happen. Products are made badly, people can't show up to work, that labor pool employers like to exploit becomes degraded and we all pay the price, and for what? So the employer can make a few more dollars that won't be passed back down to the people that gave it to them.
You really need to look at the larger picture and understand that short term gains may result in long term losses. Treating people with respect is generally the right way to go.
Unless my memory is faulty, holiday time and sick leave is an optional benefit that a company MAY provide, but is not required to. I'm not sure if maternity leave is codified into law, but there is the FMLA which allows for some UNPAID time off. To be honest, there really isn't any restriction on time worked. If your hourly, the company doesn't want to pay you overtime, but you could work it if they paid it (or if they're breaking the law and requesting it off-hours). Salaried folk I don't believe have an upper limit, and this is routinely exploited by employers. I was going to say mandatory breaks are set into law, but just a quick google search tells me that it isn't federal if it is, so it may just be my state. That and my state is an 'at-will' state of employment, which pretty much means yes, I could get fired for any reason (except for the rare case where you can prove discrimination).
I hate to say it, but most of those points are actually accurate. Most of those things are not law, just common practice to provide. If an employer desired not to offer them (usually for factory-style positions), then they won't be held accountable in court for doing so.
So did you actually work in the US too, or are you just assuming the benefits given to you are actually guaranteed, and not something nice the employer offered?
I had this problem with their VZ Navigator program. Somehow, and I'll be hard pressed to figure out how, my phone got jostled and bumped just the right ways to download that app on its own. I only noticed it when my bill came up and there was a nice extra $10 charge. I did get my money back, and deleted the app from the phone immediately, but it sure would have been nice to customize the home screen and delete the stuff I'll never use. Only solution was to have VZ block that app's download on their side.
A person who produces something gets to dictate the terms under which it is used.
See, I take a little offense at this. A person who produces something (hardware or software) does not get to dictate how that product is used, not under the law. The right of first purchase allows a purchaser to resell his item and compete (for one sale) with the original manufacturer. And, if I choose to use my toaster as a foot stool, I can do so and the manufacturer can't enforce squat on me. EULA 'usage control' attempts aside, the only controls over use of an item come from laws passed for safety reasons, not from what the manufacturer says you can or can't do with it.
What you probably MEANT to say is that a software publisher has been granted a "temporary" monopoly to define how that product is reproduced (the right to copy or... copyright) in exchange for that product eventually falling into the public domain. That is accurate and it is what has been granted/protected under the law. By phrasing it badly like this, you're doing a disservice to what has been granted, and distorting for others what copyright really means.
I'm sure that a lot of people like myself are getting annoyed with copyright holders. Sure, I get it that it takes time and effort to produce something like music or movies or art or software. However, why should you get paid ad infinitum for the same work for eternity (effectively)? The work I do today I won't get paid for later, what makes copyrighted works so special? And don't say it's because I'm not creating anything, because I most certainly do.
Return the balance to copyright and the public domain, and perhaps people will feel more respectful of it in the future.
One might assume that, and for a $1:$200+$70-120/mo ratio, you might be correct. At what ratio, though, does that statement not hold true? 1:1? 2:1? less? Depending on your budget, the phone might consume all allocated to disposable spending and there might not be any extra $$'s left for apps, unless you're advocating budget-less spending habits (which I wouldn't recommend). That's the whole reason the statement 'Just because you can afford x, you can afford y' is a fallacy.
I, too, have a child and fear dreadfully the day she gets her hands on a game disk ($50, no question, few discounts ever available) and in one careless moment *SCRATCH!* There goes playing that game. Additionally, isn't it nice to just grab your controller and skim through the HDD menu to get to the game you want, rather than dig through a shelf, pull it out, and load it into the console? Also easier to switch games on a whim.
That was my only motivation for hacking my console.
While I too am not a physicist, my understanding is that, while normal particles are falling into the black hole, it is increasing its mass faster than it is losing it. However, for black holes that do not have an accretion disk or other inflow of matter, Hawking radiation would cause a slow but net decrease in mass of the black hole.
DDoS attacks don't rely on compromising data so much as they rely on denying you access to resources. If you're on the same network as the 'unwashed masses', they can flood your pipe and block you from getting out unless you've got some really good traffic management protocols.
All software has bugs in it. It is a known and generally accepted problem with software development. They are generally accidental and are corrected when they are noticed and a cause for concern. That is a far cry different than knowingly compromising a system and usurping control of it away from it's legal owner.
You're trying to conflate the issues of accident and deliberate act. They are not even remotely the same thing.
It would only be a 50/50 chance if the forces affecting boy/girl selection were balanced. They aren't specifically. Many factors contribute to the process and, last I read, the probability was closer to 51-52% boy/48-49% girl based on those factors. Of course, this tends to balance out naturally later on as boys suffer higher mortality rates (both pre and post birth) due to the lack of redundancy of key genes.
It's too bad that we're treking down the other path now, where people are being convicted of rape by deception. Since when did making a bad choice, sleeping with someone before you really knew them, become something that was criminal? It's not like the victim was drugged or anything, they made a bad choice based on bad information.
Does that mean I'll soon be able to sue my auto dealer when they give me bad information about a bad car that I choose to buy?
The human species is capable of love in varying capacities, and for varying lengths of time. I can love the car I own, but not love it when it starts to break down more often than it works. I can love my wife, but if she starts to abuse me, I can also find that love evaporate. I can love my children and love my wife too, using two completely different sets of criteria and motivation, and neither are in conflict. Why do you think that it is impossible to give yourself to another (sex or love) and then be unable to devote yourself 100% to someone else later? What makes you think you could devote yourself 100% to any one other person in the first place? And, considering you're supposed to love God, your wife, your children, and all of mankind, can you be expected to?
For those that want to wait until marriage, I applaud their self restraint. Certainly, that is a task that is not easy to complete in this day and age. However, the ability to commit yourself to someone else is separate from your past. If you cannot commit to just one person, then you won't be able to within a marriage, even if you wait until then to have sex. If you can commit, then you could commit yourself to a series of individuals and never violate that until the partnership came to an end (as all things do end eventually).
It starts to get rather bothersome when people, particularly those speaking from a basis of religion, conflate the problems with commitment with the behavior of sex before marriage.
Go the other side of the road. You picked things that ostensibly have the drivers of choice behind them. How about if you choose to have protected sex except that it doesn't prevent you from catching AIDS (manufacturing defect in the latex, for instance)? How about driving to work, the same that you've done every day, and a car comes out from a blind spot and T-bones your car, even though you were following the traffic signals and were not speeding? How about finally falling victim to that genetic disorder you weren't aware of until just last year? Suppose your mother was addicted to crack when you were in vitro and left you with a learning disorder? Tell me where in that situation is the victim supposed to have chosen the better path.
There are some situations that no amount of choosing can get you out of. We hope those situations are few and far between, but they do happen. Had you conceded to even one of those situations and acknowledged that they exist, your argument would carry more weight. As it is, it has left me, at least, wondering if you really believe all that you need to do to better your life is make better choices.
I don't think he left out WWI and WWII. If you go with when Pearl Harbor was attacked, 1941, then we have gone more than 50 years since a foreign nation attacked the US within the borders of one of our states. There have been other conflicts, but I don't recall that any of them since Pearl Harbor were done by a foreign nation. Civil unrest, and terrorist attacks. Neither of which are from a foreign nation.
Bailouts. Are you referring to those loans that the government made to private businesses? Those aren't simply gifts, they are expected to be repaid at some point in the future. In fact, with the bank bailouts, a good portion of them WERE paid back, though still not the full amount of funding used to do the bailouts. This is not to say that the taxpayers should be on the hook for private industry failures. You can't privatize profits and socialize losses, especially not when greed got you into trouble in the first place.
If you want to see money flowing out the door, stimulus funding was to be paid and never reclaimed. If you want to complain about something, complain about that. At least it makes you sound more honest.
Inclusion of a clause that says we can change the terms at any time and enforcement of that term are two separate issues. The problem with such contracts is that the offended party generally needs to do something about that offense, IE take the other party to civil court. For most people, they don't want the hassle and either submit to the new rules or leave, if they can. That still doesn't make those clauses legal. It just means they get away with it.
Most techs know that a Cable internet line is shared between you and your neighbors, but does your average person know that? Is it advertised as such in the company's documentation? I can't say I've actively looked at cable internet lately to know these things, but I'd hazard a guess that they do not, in fact, make plain the pitfalls of their service.
Sometimes there are some banks that treat their customers right. While the one I house my money at is labeled as a bank, it acts very much better than even the best credit unions, and I like credit unions. True overdraft protection without fee, with your own money, handled automatically! A policy of deposits before charges when processed in batch. I've had as of yet absolutely no complaints with my bank, had no fees charged yet with them, and in fact the one time they were well within their right to charge me a fee (wire transfer), they waved it due to some misunderstandings on my part.
This all might come from the fact that it may have limited membership because of who runs it or the particular type of clients they typically serve, but being a bank I can't imagine they have membership requirements.
I live in the United States. Where do you live? If it is also the United States, then we are on the same Federal Income Tax schedules and I fail to see how your query about my location is relevant.
While the marginal tax rate goes up for higher incomes, the fact remains that for the federal income tax schedule, you are not taxed on 100% of your gross earnings. The claim that someone 'earning $35k [gross income] paid $4938 in [federal income tax]' is factually inaccurate, as it fails to account for deductions (standard or itemized and per-dependent) that reduce your taxable income. This has a larger effect at lower incomes than higher, especially as you approach the poverty line.
The argument was Federal taxes, not state or local sales taxes. The link provided was even directly referencing federal income tax. I did not say that was 100% of your tax burden, but I do see a problem with claiming that your federal income tax is based on 100% of your gross earnings. It just isn't fact.
Slashdot Mirror
You have 20/20 hindsight right now. You KNOW that those airliners were hijacked and you KNOW that they were going to cause more destruction than just flying around. What was known at the time of the incident was far different than what you know now.
Following 9/11, in Chicago, there was an incident where that guy was trying to light his shoes. I was working in the suburbs at the time, and recall hearing a pair of air cracking booms out of nowhere. When the confusion was settled and the news was revealed, it became apparent that those booms were a pair of fighter jets tearing into Chicago airspace to play escort to that airliner.
To me, that tells me that we were and are capable of responding appropriately to air defense even within the borders of the US. What it also tells me is that, if anyone knew that those planes were hijacked before they hit the towers, they probably expected them to be flown elsewhere, not used as weapons. Don't forget that the terrorists knew how to fly a plane, and once in control of the cockpit, it is unlikely that any radio communications would have indicated a problem. Only flight position would have betrayed a problem, but as you may recall, we've had airliners overfly their landing site and continue for .. what, an hour or two, without communication, before a response was sent.
Its easy to see problems that have already happened. It's less easy to see problems before they occur.
Yes, the net result for the very healthy people is that they are vacation days that do not demand significant announcement prior to use. The drawback is that if you need them later and have spent too many on 'I want a day off tomorrow', then you're taking vacation or no pay.
The migraine example was just that, an example. I've had illnesses that hit me hard, running a 104 degree fever, and the next day.. feeling well enough to go to work. I've had that only twice that I can recall so far, so where is the documentation required by my doctor?
Injury should be covered under Workman's comp or short term disability. Of course, that also depends on your role in the workforce.
My whole point about the parent's example was that use of vacation for 'short term illness' is not because that's what it should or shouldn't be used for, but to prevent the employee from using all the vacation time at once, and to prevent the use of sick time all together (unless you qualify for what would otherwise, in my jobs, be called short term disability). It is a net win for the employer (more worked hours for those paid) and loss for the employee (a benefit that is of no use is not a benefit). It has far less to do with actually preventing abuse of sick time off.
When I refer to worker's rights, I don't refer to restrictions. I refer to minimums. A minimum of 15 minutes every 5 hours for breaks, for instance. Is that a restriction, or is that a guarantee that you will have at least time to get up, stretch, move a round, and do something personal every 2 hours (or so)? I don't know where you get restrictions from. As for letting potential employees negotiate the full terms of their own employment, often times what the employer has is far more valuable to the employee than the employee is to the employer. Hundreds of candidates may be viable for a particular job, but perhaps that potential employee only has that one job offer on the table. That is not a strong position to negotiate from as an employee, and I would imagine most employers are well aware of this fact by now. Ask for too much (or anything at all), and they simply move on to the next candidate who won't ask beyond the offer.
I also said nothing about being able to live without labor, but in modern society, there generally isn't enough land for everyone to produce enough food on their own to eat for a full month, let alone a full year. In order to survive, you need a job, monetized labor as you put it, in order to buy the aspects of survival that you need, and hopefully some luxuries that you want too. Because of this state, having a job isn't so much a want as a must have, and if you are forced into the job market to survive, you are, in effect, slave labor. You just aren't owned by any one company.
Workers rights are about balancing two opposing forces. The rights of workers to be free from abuse and indentured servitude, and the rights of business to 'contract' for labor. Right now, with nothing on the table protecting the workers, then business is allowed (and often does) trample over workers in their pursuit of profit. No significant rise in wages for the middle class in America for some time, despite rising costs. It's nice that employers offer benefits like time off, but that's only because if they didn't, others that did would gain more valuable employees.
Besides, it makes perfect sense to request, codified into law, time off for breaks and sick time, workplace protections, etc. When you have happy employees, you have productive employees. Employers tend to be stupid about seeking short term gains over long term. I suggest you review some of the atrocities of industry, lack of protections prior to things like OSHA. I'll give you one suggestion, "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. The employers don't care, and won't unless they are given good reason to.
How nice that your employer lets you take a vacation day when you have a migraine so bad that you can't even see the light of day. Tomorrow you'll be fine, but today, it's vacation. Get out and enjoy it!
The reason for doing that is because they know that people will sometimes be down with a day or two illness, but be fine later. If they can burn up that pool of vacation time then, then they won't have to worry about the employee taking that time off later. The net result? I'm sure you probably have more people in your workplace with contagious diseases than would otherwise be if they were allowed to stay home that day and not infect the rest of the workplace. Great call on the employer's part. Now, instead of being down one person for a day or two, now they'll be down several people for several days as the illness runs its course through their workforce.
While that scenario is overly simplified, it is probably far more common than to have someone need to take sick time for long enough that a doctor needs to be called.
My employer has a different simple solution. They call it sick/personal time. You can use it at your discretion, but if you use it for personal days and then get sick, you get to take it unpaid, and that's really no fun. It allows us employees to meter when we need to take a day for our mental welfare and become productive again. It also has that hefty drawback that we, as employees, try to avoid.
There is a difference between having it offered as something to sweeten employment and being required to provide it in all jobs.
Wow, what a totally 'me first' attitude. Let me guess, you own your own business and don't want to have to provide these things to your employees?
Let's go to the extreme. People getting murdered around you doesn't affect you if you're not an incompetent moron to get caught in that situation, no reason to make rules for that sort of thing, is there? Oh woe, if you made murder illegal, you'd have to spend money on police, and that'd just waste your taxes on something that gives you personally no benefit. Can't have that.
Much as we don't like to acknowledge it, the working class of the US is pretty much slave labor. We can't really live on our own without a job, so we are required to get one in order to live. If you happen to be a rare commodity and know something special, then maybe you can dictate terms. The majority cannot. Much of the work done in the US is menial in some way, shape, or form, and most positions are replaceable with a bit of training. This leaves us a conundrum about how to treat our workforce.
Worker's rights helps ensure the general welfare of our society. Not welfare like getting paid because you're poor, but welfare like you're healthy and well rested, able to think clearly, and so on. When people are stressed, all manner of bad thing happen. Products are made badly, people can't show up to work, that labor pool employers like to exploit becomes degraded and we all pay the price, and for what? So the employer can make a few more dollars that won't be passed back down to the people that gave it to them.
You really need to look at the larger picture and understand that short term gains may result in long term losses. Treating people with respect is generally the right way to go.
Unless my memory is faulty, holiday time and sick leave is an optional benefit that a company MAY provide, but is not required to. I'm not sure if maternity leave is codified into law, but there is the FMLA which allows for some UNPAID time off. To be honest, there really isn't any restriction on time worked. If your hourly, the company doesn't want to pay you overtime, but you could work it if they paid it (or if they're breaking the law and requesting it off-hours). Salaried folk I don't believe have an upper limit, and this is routinely exploited by employers. I was going to say mandatory breaks are set into law, but just a quick google search tells me that it isn't federal if it is, so it may just be my state. That and my state is an 'at-will' state of employment, which pretty much means yes, I could get fired for any reason (except for the rare case where you can prove discrimination).
I hate to say it, but most of those points are actually accurate. Most of those things are not law, just common practice to provide. If an employer desired not to offer them (usually for factory-style positions), then they won't be held accountable in court for doing so.
So did you actually work in the US too, or are you just assuming the benefits given to you are actually guaranteed, and not something nice the employer offered?
I had this problem with their VZ Navigator program. Somehow, and I'll be hard pressed to figure out how, my phone got jostled and bumped just the right ways to download that app on its own. I only noticed it when my bill came up and there was a nice extra $10 charge. I did get my money back, and deleted the app from the phone immediately, but it sure would have been nice to customize the home screen and delete the stuff I'll never use. Only solution was to have VZ block that app's download on their side.
See, I take a little offense at this. A person who produces something (hardware or software) does not get to dictate how that product is used, not under the law. The right of first purchase allows a purchaser to resell his item and compete (for one sale) with the original manufacturer. And, if I choose to use my toaster as a foot stool, I can do so and the manufacturer can't enforce squat on me. EULA 'usage control' attempts aside, the only controls over use of an item come from laws passed for safety reasons, not from what the manufacturer says you can or can't do with it.
What you probably MEANT to say is that a software publisher has been granted a "temporary" monopoly to define how that product is reproduced (the right to copy or... copyright) in exchange for that product eventually falling into the public domain. That is accurate and it is what has been granted/protected under the law. By phrasing it badly like this, you're doing a disservice to what has been granted, and distorting for others what copyright really means.
I'm sure that a lot of people like myself are getting annoyed with copyright holders. Sure, I get it that it takes time and effort to produce something like music or movies or art or software. However, why should you get paid ad infinitum for the same work for eternity (effectively)? The work I do today I won't get paid for later, what makes copyrighted works so special? And don't say it's because I'm not creating anything, because I most certainly do.
Return the balance to copyright and the public domain, and perhaps people will feel more respectful of it in the future.
One might assume that, and for a $1:$200+$70-120/mo ratio, you might be correct. At what ratio, though, does that statement not hold true? 1:1? 2:1? less? Depending on your budget, the phone might consume all allocated to disposable spending and there might not be any extra $$'s left for apps, unless you're advocating budget-less spending habits (which I wouldn't recommend). That's the whole reason the statement 'Just because you can afford x, you can afford y' is a fallacy.
I, too, have a child and fear dreadfully the day she gets her hands on a game disk ($50, no question, few discounts ever available) and in one careless moment *SCRATCH!* There goes playing that game. Additionally, isn't it nice to just grab your controller and skim through the HDD menu to get to the game you want, rather than dig through a shelf, pull it out, and load it into the console? Also easier to switch games on a whim.
That was my only motivation for hacking my console.
While I too am not a physicist, my understanding is that, while normal particles are falling into the black hole, it is increasing its mass faster than it is losing it. However, for black holes that do not have an accretion disk or other inflow of matter, Hawking radiation would cause a slow but net decrease in mass of the black hole.
DDoS attacks don't rely on compromising data so much as they rely on denying you access to resources. If you're on the same network as the 'unwashed masses', they can flood your pipe and block you from getting out unless you've got some really good traffic management protocols.
All software has bugs in it. It is a known and generally accepted problem with software development. They are generally accidental and are corrected when they are noticed and a cause for concern. That is a far cry different than knowingly compromising a system and usurping control of it away from it's legal owner.
You're trying to conflate the issues of accident and deliberate act. They are not even remotely the same thing.
It would only be a 50/50 chance if the forces affecting boy/girl selection were balanced. They aren't specifically. Many factors contribute to the process and, last I read, the probability was closer to 51-52% boy/48-49% girl based on those factors. Of course, this tends to balance out naturally later on as boys suffer higher mortality rates (both pre and post birth) due to the lack of redundancy of key genes.
It's too bad that we're treking down the other path now, where people are being convicted of rape by deception. Since when did making a bad choice, sleeping with someone before you really knew them, become something that was criminal? It's not like the victim was drugged or anything, they made a bad choice based on bad information.
Does that mean I'll soon be able to sue my auto dealer when they give me bad information about a bad car that I choose to buy?
The human species is capable of love in varying capacities, and for varying lengths of time. I can love the car I own, but not love it when it starts to break down more often than it works. I can love my wife, but if she starts to abuse me, I can also find that love evaporate. I can love my children and love my wife too, using two completely different sets of criteria and motivation, and neither are in conflict. Why do you think that it is impossible to give yourself to another (sex or love) and then be unable to devote yourself 100% to someone else later? What makes you think you could devote yourself 100% to any one other person in the first place? And, considering you're supposed to love God, your wife, your children, and all of mankind, can you be expected to?
For those that want to wait until marriage, I applaud their self restraint. Certainly, that is a task that is not easy to complete in this day and age. However, the ability to commit yourself to someone else is separate from your past. If you cannot commit to just one person, then you won't be able to within a marriage, even if you wait until then to have sex. If you can commit, then you could commit yourself to a series of individuals and never violate that until the partnership came to an end (as all things do end eventually).
It starts to get rather bothersome when people, particularly those speaking from a basis of religion, conflate the problems with commitment with the behavior of sex before marriage.
Go the other side of the road. You picked things that ostensibly have the drivers of choice behind them. How about if you choose to have protected sex except that it doesn't prevent you from catching AIDS (manufacturing defect in the latex, for instance)? How about driving to work, the same that you've done every day, and a car comes out from a blind spot and T-bones your car, even though you were following the traffic signals and were not speeding? How about finally falling victim to that genetic disorder you weren't aware of until just last year? Suppose your mother was addicted to crack when you were in vitro and left you with a learning disorder? Tell me where in that situation is the victim supposed to have chosen the better path.
There are some situations that no amount of choosing can get you out of. We hope those situations are few and far between, but they do happen. Had you conceded to even one of those situations and acknowledged that they exist, your argument would carry more weight. As it is, it has left me, at least, wondering if you really believe all that you need to do to better your life is make better choices.
I don't think he left out WWI and WWII. If you go with when Pearl Harbor was attacked, 1941, then we have gone more than 50 years since a foreign nation attacked the US within the borders of one of our states. There have been other conflicts, but I don't recall that any of them since Pearl Harbor were done by a foreign nation. Civil unrest, and terrorist attacks. Neither of which are from a foreign nation.
Bailouts. Are you referring to those loans that the government made to private businesses? Those aren't simply gifts, they are expected to be repaid at some point in the future. In fact, with the bank bailouts, a good portion of them WERE paid back, though still not the full amount of funding used to do the bailouts. This is not to say that the taxpayers should be on the hook for private industry failures. You can't privatize profits and socialize losses, especially not when greed got you into trouble in the first place.
If you want to see money flowing out the door, stimulus funding was to be paid and never reclaimed. If you want to complain about something, complain about that. At least it makes you sound more honest.
Inclusion of a clause that says we can change the terms at any time and enforcement of that term are two separate issues. The problem with such contracts is that the offended party generally needs to do something about that offense, IE take the other party to civil court. For most people, they don't want the hassle and either submit to the new rules or leave, if they can. That still doesn't make those clauses legal. It just means they get away with it.
Most techs know that a Cable internet line is shared between you and your neighbors, but does your average person know that? Is it advertised as such in the company's documentation? I can't say I've actively looked at cable internet lately to know these things, but I'd hazard a guess that they do not, in fact, make plain the pitfalls of their service.
Sometimes there are some banks that treat their customers right. While the one I house my money at is labeled as a bank, it acts very much better than even the best credit unions, and I like credit unions. True overdraft protection without fee, with your own money, handled automatically! A policy of deposits before charges when processed in batch. I've had as of yet absolutely no complaints with my bank, had no fees charged yet with them, and in fact the one time they were well within their right to charge me a fee (wire transfer), they waved it due to some misunderstandings on my part.
This all might come from the fact that it may have limited membership because of who runs it or the particular type of clients they typically serve, but being a bank I can't imagine they have membership requirements.
I live in the United States. Where do you live? If it is also the United States, then we are on the same Federal Income Tax schedules and I fail to see how your query about my location is relevant.
While the marginal tax rate goes up for higher incomes, the fact remains that for the federal income tax schedule, you are not taxed on 100% of your gross earnings. The claim that someone 'earning $35k [gross income] paid $4938 in [federal income tax]' is factually inaccurate, as it fails to account for deductions (standard or itemized and per-dependent) that reduce your taxable income. This has a larger effect at lower incomes than higher, especially as you approach the poverty line.
The argument was Federal taxes, not state or local sales taxes. The link provided was even directly referencing federal income tax. I did not say that was 100% of your tax burden, but I do see a problem with claiming that your federal income tax is based on 100% of your gross earnings. It just isn't fact.