The AB&B rental provides an affordable home for 5 for a few months
A rental for more than 15 days or so with meals is not a "short-term rental" --- that's more like real temporary housing than "repurposing housing as hotel space to take business travelers for a high $$ profit to detriment of the local community", and units which are primarily rented out for only a minimum of longer than 2 weeks at a time are not at the risk of becoming "ghost hotels".
Yes.... Windows 10 (1803) would at least provide some unique context to "Which" update you're talking about, and I could hopefully Google search that and find a changelog for "1803" ?.
PUNYCODE. Which was INITIALLY only allowed under Non-Latin Country Code TLDs.
If you think about it.... it makes no sense to have (NON-LATIN BLOB).com or (NON-LATIN BLOB).net
I'm not sure exactly who is to blame for PunyCode suddenly being enabled under additional Latin TLDs such as.COM, but I suspect it is either ICANN or Verisign we should blame for this stupid shit, And of course.... the browser makers such as Google and Firefox had to be complicit in changing from the original defaults which was to Refuse to interpret Punycode under Latin TLDs.
So there are a BUNCH OF ENTITIES who are complicit in this because of Willfully ignoring the security problems Or deciding that supporting internationalized names under the US/Latin Suffixes is "more important".
GrayShift is an American company which appears to be run by an ex-Apple security engineer and others who have long held contracts with intelligence agencies.
Seriously? That ex-security-engineer must be violating like 20 different agreements that Apple makes their employees that build their products sign, and here's hoping to see Apple press the charges for industrial espionage, get that ex-engineer in jail for 25 years and sue him for every $$ he and his company's worth.
Taking innate knowledge and all the trade secrets you learned about your employer's product AND then using that to go to work creating or working for a company whose purpose is to subvert that product is almost as severe a breach of IP a product engineer can commit....
Is this because Microsoft created Windows, and this is the update they released? Because the name is redundant.
I'm kind of getting sick of this bullshit name "Creator's Update" that doesn't even provide any information on what they'll actually be putting in the update
Germany appeals stating, that Australia has no proof of what date the bottle landed on their beach countersues Australia for secretly holding their missing bottle on their shoreline; applies a penalty fine for the petty theft and adds many years of compounding interest for a charge to Australia of $1,230,000.
I think buyers are expecting to (1) PROFIT from anticipated crypto appreciation, AND (2) Use the heat to do useful work instead of having to pay for cooling.
The next best alternative is instead of buying one of these things....... figure out HOW Much crypto you could actually expect to mine with it in a year, And buy that quantity on an exchange instead.
And keep using whatever existing solution you're using to heat your place.... electric space heaters are less than $500 though, so this isn't a great deal as far as heaters go.
Yes, lets give all the power of renting property to corporations. I can't tell if you are a fascist or a communist.
That's not my goal..... that's a response to TechyImmigrant's complaint that "The rules are too complicated if you add exceptions to still allow homeowners to still do vacation rentals of their property while still blocking things like apartment owners converting to slipshod hotels."
By the way: the status quo by the way is: for the most part only businesses, and people with dedicated high-value vacation properties, e.g. beachfront cottages do short-term property rentals.
Neat. I'm gonna go start five numbered corporations, of which I'm the sole shareholder
"For the purpose of this regulation, any short-term rental made by a partnership, corporation or trust may enjoy this allowance ONLY if all owners or beneficiaries are reduced to a list of individual named persons who completely assign their rental allowances to this organization to be used up only In a proportion equal to their proportion of ownership or interest in the assets and profits of the corporation or trust, And each short term rental property and the number of days per year rented out must be reported and obey the same limits as if made by these persons as direct joint owners of the property. In case of exceeding the allowances, these persons and the corporation or trust they represent shall be both separately and jointly liable for any penalty charges due to the violation."
You clearly underestimate how easy it is to obscure the ownership of a company
How about disallowing ALL companies or trusts, and saying Only individuals are allowed this special privilege to make limited short-term rentals
of parts of their home or second home.
"If you're sophisticated to organize a separate entity, for example, for liability protection, then you lose the special exemption and have to do it by the book with a Hotel-licensed location, which also means your property can't be in a zoned residential home or apartment complex."
Why not have some more OpenID providers that would handle enrollment directly between them and the end user? AND let Enterprises choose what providers are acceptable based on what strength of auth. is required ---- Among other things, Mandatory Two-Factor.
People love to invent rules for other people. The more complicated the better.
Fine. Ban all short-term leasing or sub-leasing of Apartments, Homes, or portions of an Apartment or Home on all Real-Estate, except for Commercial Units licensed as hotels. Do you feel that is superior?
Apparently that might have been wrong.... your brain COULD produce new cells after birth, but stop producing them some time before you reach adulthood.
Perhaps continuing to produce neurons beyond childhood would cause some issues with how minds work.
transforming from a way to help homeowners occasionally rent out an extra room into a purveyor of creepy, makeshift hotels.
How about this: create a law that Limits the number of housing units AND number of days rented out per year which any 1 person or business is allowed to make available for short-term rent without a Hotel permit for each property --- including through any number of business partners or related entities.
So if you're a homeowner and have 1 or 2 properties which you rent out less than 80% of the year total across your properties, then FINE, allow that ---- You're allowed to have up to a total of ONE rental unit for short/temp housing accommodation (Count that includes Any and all sub-rentals across all properties that occur for a time less than 20 days) rented out 80% of the days each year, OR two housing accommodations rented out average 40% of the days per 1 year per unit, OR three housing accommodations rented out no more than average 26.67% of the days per 1 year per unit.
(In other words: the more units that are rented out to different tenants, the fewer days you may be renting them out per year.)
Thus if you have 3 properties in the same city Or have it rented out your properties for a combined total among your properties of more than 290 rental-days, then you're in a "Short-term accommodation business" and must have planning approval and permit your properties as Hotel space --- which if approved by Zoning includes regular inspections, and an additional Tax on each rental.
Reasonable regulation should allow reasonable rental revenue by an ordinary homeowner BUT prevent wealthy real-estate investors or corporations from exploiting Uber to make large-scale transformations of apartments to hotel rooms, etc.
It's clearly no charity.... this is Discriminatory pricing plain and simple. Attempting to encourage people who probably shouldn't be spending what little money they have on entertainment to buy a service they probably should not be buying.
If it were for "charity", they'd be giving it away at $0.... instead they're still tryiing to Profit, and people with more income pay them more, so it's a form of unfair pricing for services, AND they're on dangerous ground to be discriminating based on participation in a government program ---- technically the government is NOT to allow their programs to be used in such manner.
People who vandalize property which belongs to others have the maturity level of a young child, and a young child who has not been properly taught how to behave, at that.
Makes sense.... Rehabilitation is the right answer. Send the vandals to a school. A boarding school where they will live behind bars like the animals they are until rehabilitated.
I think most patents cost about 25k to 50k. I have just worked on....
I'm sure there's some costs being missed here --- being able to take some one-off thing you know is Invention and then get a patent on it may be feasible for 50K, But most quality patentable things aren't going to come up by accident -- they require a lot of time and labor by experts such as engineers who are highly compensated then with 50K you'd be ignoring all that labor that was required to come up with an invention and Then to consider what patents to file in the first place --- the $50K process starts AFTER a whole bunch of other costs that are part of the costs leading up to the patent registration.
The whole cost of coming up with the novel product or invention, divided by the number of patents being applied for, effectively is part of the associated costs for getting the patent.
For example: $100 Million in Research and Development costs on a project yielding 10 patents = $10 Million in costs/Patent
"hey pay me 1 billion for patent license." and they said "our offer is 1Mil" you might need someone who could push them closer to your figure.
$1 Mil for a patent license is some crazy low figure. $100 Mil at least, or bust. It costs more than $1 Million just for the patent research and registration costs to get the patent in force in the first place.
No, the minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's about total cost per hour, it's about efficiency and machines are across the board more efficient.....
No... you couldn't be more wrong here. While it's true that machines COULD be more-efficient than humans, Magnitude matters a lot.
A human worker that does the same stuff for $15/Hour that was previously done for $7.50/Hour is naturally 50% less efficient than before the increase.
It can very well be UP TO NOW (before the minimum wage) companies had a viable profitable business, AND considering developing and/or using machine cooks would be seen as highly risky.
Now with minimum wage increases looming the view on machines changes, because "This is now necessary for the business to survive and be profitable ---- we've gotta take this risk now!"
So the minimum wage increase becomes basically a catalyst that forces businesses in a direction they might not have explored, or considered an acceptable risk for a long time, otherwise.
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
YES. The concept is absolutely unconstitutional, and a violation of both.
State governments can tax on paid content for sale in their state through sales tax, but cannot charge a tax discriminating based on subject matter of the speech.
"Filtering" or "Blocking" any message using technological filters would also be a prior restraint on free speech.
This is what you call a poorly-conceived, UNLAWFUL, and Unenforceable bill.
The keys are compromised for sure so its not inappropriate, but a better method might have been to sign something with the keys as proof instead.
What they showed wasn't proof of the compromise the reseller had been claiming happened. What they showed was proof that the reseller had (IMPROPERLY and DELIBERATELY) retained customer private keys, WHICH IS INAPPROPRIATE --- and the reseller then literally compromised their keys (that might not have been compromised before) to "prove" it, which was ALSO highly inappropriate.
why did digicert only suspend 23k keys instead of the full 50k as was initially reported?
None of the keys are KNOWN compromised according to the reseller, Only suspected that they could have been, and ultimately it's the customer's decision how to proceed if there's merely a suspicion or belief ---- PROOF would have been obtaining compromised Keys through the flaw, not going to deliberately retained cold storage files and retrieving customer keys.
And it's sexist. There are plenty of female pedophiles.
It doesn't matter.... statistics could probably tell them which kind of situation is likely to be a more common issue.
I think surveying users should be fine, BUT regardless of the survey results, this is illegal behavior, and Facebook needs to report it to law enforcement and attempt to mitigate the damage if it occurs.
Unusually high energy usage might reveal the whereabouts of the illegal bitcoin mine.
Or a legal one. Or any of another thousands of possible businesses that require high electric consumption.
I imagine most thieves would want a quick buck not to be running 600 machines in one place for a long period of time ---- if they were collaborating and run the miners for themselves, I would suspect run they 60 10x-machine mining operations would be their strategy rather than 1 600-machine operation.
If those that lost the miners are smart, they'll have been keeping records of equipment serial numbers and report them as stolen back to the manufacturer that probably has some backdoor-means of identifying their miners on the network or "remote beacon" method of locating their IP, for instance.
Authorities this week called on local internet providers, electricians and storage space units to report any unusual requests for power
Internet providers? Have nil to do with electric delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
The AB&B rental provides an affordable home for 5 for a few months
A rental for more than 15 days or so with meals is not a "short-term rental" --- that's more like real temporary housing than "repurposing housing as hotel space to take business travelers for a high $$ profit to detriment of the local community", and units which are primarily rented out for only a minimum of longer than 2 weeks at a time are not at the risk of becoming "ghost hotels".
Sounds like something to help with our drinking water shortages of late....
Let's get a drillin!
Yes.... Windows 10 (1803) would at least provide some unique context to "Which" update you're talking about, and I could hopefully Google search that and find a changelog for "1803" ?.
PUNYCODE. Which was INITIALLY only allowed under Non-Latin Country Code TLDs.
If you think about it.... it makes no sense to have (NON-LATIN BLOB).com or (NON-LATIN BLOB).net
I'm not sure exactly who is to blame for PunyCode suddenly being enabled under additional Latin TLDs such as .COM,
but I suspect it is either ICANN or Verisign we should blame for this stupid shit, And of course.... the browser makers such as Google and Firefox had to be complicit in changing from the original defaults which was to Refuse to interpret Punycode under Latin TLDs.
So there are a BUNCH OF ENTITIES who are complicit in this because of Willfully ignoring the security problems Or deciding that supporting internationalized names under the US/Latin Suffixes is "more important".
GrayShift is an American company which appears to be run by an ex-Apple security engineer and others who have long held contracts with intelligence agencies.
Seriously? That ex-security-engineer must be violating like 20 different agreements that Apple makes their employees that build their products sign, and here's hoping to see Apple press the charges for industrial espionage, get that ex-engineer in jail for 25 years and sue him for every $$ he and his company's worth.
Taking innate knowledge and all the trade secrets you learned about your employer's product AND then using that to go to work creating or working for a company whose purpose is to subvert that product is almost as severe a breach of IP a product engineer can commit....
Is this because Microsoft created Windows, and this is the update they released?
Because the name is redundant.
I'm kind of getting sick of this bullshit name "Creator's Update" that doesn't even provide any information on what they'll actually be putting in the update
Germany appeals stating, that Australia has no proof of what date the bottle landed on their beach countersues Australia for secretly holding their missing bottle on their shoreline; applies a penalty fine for the petty theft and adds many years of compounding interest for a charge to Australia of $1,230,000.
I think buyers are expecting to (1) PROFIT from anticipated crypto appreciation, AND (2) Use the heat to do useful work instead of having to pay for cooling.
The next best alternative is instead of buying one of these things....... figure out HOW Much crypto you could actually expect to mine with it in a year, And buy that quantity on an exchange instead.
And keep using whatever existing solution you're using to heat your place.... electric space heaters are less than $500 though, so this isn't a great deal as far as heaters go.
Yes, lets give all the power of renting property to corporations. I can't tell if you are a fascist or a communist.
That's not my goal..... that's a response to TechyImmigrant's complaint that "The rules are too complicated if you add exceptions to still allow homeowners to still do vacation rentals of their property while still blocking things like apartment owners converting to slipshod hotels."
By the way: the status quo by the way is: for the most part only businesses, and people with dedicated high-value vacation properties, e.g. beachfront cottages do short-term property rentals.
Neat. I'm gonna go start five numbered corporations, of which I'm the sole shareholder
"For the purpose of this regulation, any short-term rental made by a partnership, corporation or trust may enjoy this allowance
ONLY if all owners or beneficiaries are reduced to a list of individual named persons who completely assign their rental allowances
to this organization to be used up only In a proportion equal to their proportion of ownership or interest in the assets and profits of the corporation or trust,
And each short term rental property and the number of days per year rented out must be reported and obey the same limits as
if made by these persons as direct joint owners of the property. In case of exceeding the allowances, these persons and the
corporation or trust they represent shall be both separately and jointly liable for any penalty charges due to the violation."
You clearly underestimate how easy it is to obscure the ownership of a company
How about disallowing ALL companies or trusts, and saying Only individuals are allowed this special privilege to make limited short-term rentals
of parts of their home or second home.
"If you're sophisticated to organize a separate entity, for example, for liability protection, then you lose the special exemption and have to do it by the book with a Hotel-licensed location, which also means your property can't be in a zoned residential home or apartment complex."
Why not have some more OpenID providers that would handle enrollment directly between them and the end user?
AND let Enterprises choose what providers are acceptable based on what strength of auth. is required ---- Among other things, Mandatory Two-Factor.
People love to invent rules for other people. The more complicated the better.
Fine. Ban all short-term leasing or sub-leasing of Apartments, Homes, or portions of an Apartment or Home on all Real-Estate, except for Commercial Units licensed as hotels.
Do you feel that is superior?
Apparently that might have been wrong.... your brain COULD produce new cells after birth, but stop producing them some time before you reach adulthood.
Perhaps continuing to produce neurons beyond childhood would cause some issues with how minds work.
transforming from a way to help homeowners occasionally rent out an extra room into a purveyor of creepy, makeshift hotels.
How about this: create a law that Limits the number of housing units AND number of days rented out per year which any 1 person or business is allowed to make available for short-term rent without a Hotel permit for each property --- including through any number of business partners or related entities.
So if you're a homeowner and have 1 or 2 properties which you rent out less than 80% of the year total across your properties, then FINE, allow that ---- You're allowed to have up to a total of ONE rental unit for short/temp housing accommodation (Count that includes Any and all sub-rentals across all properties that occur for a time less than 20 days) rented out 80% of the days each year, OR two housing accommodations rented out average 40% of the days per 1 year per unit, OR three housing accommodations rented out no more than average 26.67% of the days per 1 year per unit.
(In other words: the more units that are rented out to different tenants, the fewer days you may be renting them out per year.)
Thus if you have 3 properties in the same city Or have it rented out your properties for a combined total among your properties of more than 290 rental-days, then you're in a "Short-term accommodation business" and must have planning approval and permit your properties as Hotel space --- which if approved by Zoning includes regular inspections, and an additional Tax on each rental.
Reasonable regulation should allow reasonable rental revenue by an ordinary homeowner BUT prevent wealthy real-estate investors or corporations from exploiting Uber to make large-scale transformations of apartments to hotel rooms, etc.
It's clearly no charity.... this is Discriminatory pricing plain and simple.
Attempting to encourage people who probably shouldn't be spending what little money they have on
entertainment to buy a service they probably should not be buying.
If it were for "charity", they'd be giving it away at $0.... instead they're still tryiing to Profit, and people with more income pay them more, so it's a form of unfair pricing for services, AND they're on dangerous ground to be discriminating based on participation in a government program ---- technically the government is NOT to allow their programs to be used in such manner.
People who vandalize property which belongs to others have the maturity level of a young child, and a young child who has not been properly taught how to behave, at that.
Makes sense.... Rehabilitation is the right answer. Send the vandals to a school. A boarding school where they will live behind bars like the animals they are until rehabilitated.
I think most patents cost about 25k to 50k. I have just worked on ....
I'm sure there's some costs being missed here --- being able to take some one-off thing you know is Invention and then get a patent on it may be feasible for 50K,
But most quality patentable things aren't going to come up by accident -- they require a lot of time and labor by experts such as engineers who are highly compensated then with 50K you'd be ignoring all that labor that was required to come up with an invention and Then to consider what patents to file in the first place --- the $50K process starts AFTER a whole bunch of other costs that are part of the costs leading up to the patent registration.
The whole cost of coming up with the novel product or invention, divided by the number of patents being applied for, effectively is part of the associated costs for getting the
patent.
For example: $100 Million in Research and Development costs on a project yielding 10 patents = $10 Million in costs/Patent
"hey pay me 1 billion for patent license." and they said "our offer is 1Mil" you might need someone who could push them closer to your figure.
$1 Mil for a patent license is some crazy low figure. $100 Mil at least, or bust. It costs more than $1 Million just for the patent research and registration costs to get the patent in force in the first place.
Cryptocurrencies smell like tulips.
No.... Tulips are tangible goods whose flowers people derive a lot of enjoyment from; try again.
No, the minimum wage has absolutely nothing to do with this. It's about total cost per hour, it's about efficiency and machines are across the board more efficient .....
No... you couldn't be more wrong here. While it's true that machines COULD be more-efficient than humans, Magnitude matters a lot.
A human worker that does the same stuff for $15/Hour that was previously done for $7.50/Hour is naturally 50% less efficient than before the increase.
It can very well be UP TO NOW (before the minimum wage) companies had a viable profitable business, AND considering developing and/or using machine cooks would be seen as highly risky.
Now with minimum wage increases looming the view on machines changes, because "This is now necessary for the business to survive and be profitable ---- we've gotta take this risk now!"
So the minimum wage increase becomes basically a catalyst that forces businesses in a direction they might not have explored, or considered an acceptable risk for a long time, otherwise.
Isn't this a violation of both net neutrality AND 1st amendment.
YES. The concept is absolutely unconstitutional, and a violation of both.
State governments can tax on paid content for sale in their state through sales tax, but cannot charge a tax discriminating based on subject matter of the speech.
"Filtering" or "Blocking" any message using technological filters would also be a prior restraint on free speech.
This is what you call a poorly-conceived, UNLAWFUL, and Unenforceable bill.
The keys are compromised for sure so its not inappropriate, but a better method might have been to sign something with the keys as proof instead.
What they showed wasn't proof of the compromise the reseller had been claiming happened. What they showed was proof that the reseller had (IMPROPERLY and DELIBERATELY) retained customer private keys, WHICH IS INAPPROPRIATE --- and the reseller then literally compromised their keys (that might not have been compromised before) to "prove" it, which was ALSO highly inappropriate.
why did digicert only suspend 23k keys instead of the full 50k as was initially reported?
None of the keys are KNOWN compromised according to the reseller, Only suspected that they could have been, and ultimately it's the customer's decision how to proceed if there's merely a suspicion or belief ---- PROOF would have been obtaining compromised Keys through the flaw, not going to deliberately retained cold storage files and retrieving customer keys.
And it's sexist. There are plenty of female pedophiles.
It doesn't matter.... statistics could probably tell them which kind of situation is likely to be a more common issue.
I think surveying users should be fine, BUT regardless of the survey results, this is illegal behavior, and Facebook needs to report it to law enforcement and attempt to mitigate the damage if it occurs.
Unusually high energy usage might reveal the whereabouts of the illegal bitcoin mine.
Or a legal one. Or any of another thousands of possible businesses that require high electric consumption.
I imagine most thieves would want a quick buck not to be running 600 machines in one place for a long period of time ----
if they were collaborating and run the miners for themselves, I would suspect run they 60 10x-machine mining operations would be their strategy rather than 1 600-machine operation.
If those that lost the miners are smart, they'll have been keeping records of equipment serial numbers and report them as stolen back to the manufacturer that probably has some backdoor-means of identifying their miners on the network or "remote beacon" method of locating their IP, for instance.
Authorities this week called on local internet providers, electricians and storage space units to report any unusual requests for power
Internet providers? Have nil to do with electric delivery.