The "scheduled sale" is a lie. No CEO dumps ALL of his stock.
If they schedule the sale in advance and provide the required notice to shareholders, then they are legally able to sell as much stock as they want. If the CEO anticipates a drop or sees turmoil or sees themselves being fired or retiring, they may very well dump all their stock and get more back later through executive stock compensation.
Once the lawsuits come rolling in he won't have a choice. This isn't fixable. The best you can do is mitigate the damage.
It turns out that these new methods of attack affect AMD x86 CPUs, and ARM non-x86 CPUs as well, so it's a multi-platform weakness that the only hardware safe against are essentially iPad and iPhone.
Someone may TRY to sue Intel over this, but I suspect they will not be successful, since this isn't defective hardware per se, but hardware that doesn't resist a new kind of attack method.
So from a warranty standpoint -- the CPUs are not defective, they perform as promised, but are just vulnerable to unforseen issues which are Not specific to the way Intel's CPUs are made BUT are general to the way almost All CPUs are made by ALL the manufacturers.
You DON'T always get a free upgrade to your hardware when new unforseeable attack methods are discovered. Instead, sorry, but if your security requirements necessitate a hardware change, then you're going to have to pay for it, and don't expect a massive charity from Intel.
How could you start an antitrust suit on the grounds of Google Chrome ?
They are modifying their websites to discourage or prevent the use of competing browser software.
Google Chrome is given away for free
The price of the product isn't actually relevant. Internet Explorer was given away "for free" too, but you paid for the OS. In the case of Google Chrome: when you use the browser it feeds Google information about you, so in a sense Google receives OTHER compensation than direct payment, but there's still a payment for the product in the form of lost privacy and Ad Dollars gained from more-effective targeting; ALSO Chrome feeds into OTHER Google services by incorporating them directly.
Google doesn't make a single penny directly out of Chrome.
False. As explained Chrome has integrated Google products such as Search defaulting to Google's service, which Google is paid ad dollars for. Chrome is able to track your browsing and what you type into the Title bar and share valuable info with Google that makes it DIFFICULT for other Ad agencies to compete with Google.
Google doesn't give a shit about which browser, as long as you use *A* browser, and go online,
Clearly that is false, otherwise Google would not be so often prompting users to use Chrome or making websites say they Work better in Chrome, or blocking access to Edge users and sometimes FF users, As explained in the original article.
if they can't serve ads for nearby restaurants and services they're essentially throwing out money.
Not "throwing out money": providing the customer the functionality that the customer paid for when they purchased the Alexa box.
I for one want an HONEST agent which will make its best effort to suggest to me the BEST options for me: NOT prioritize suggestions that may be less good for me but are better monetized for Amazon.
I say it is an unreasonable conflict of interest to be offering a "personal agent/assistant" that includes the job of recommending products sometimes AND take sponsorships at the same time.
that's used to divide up the blanket license profits between the artists.
No...... well, terrestrial broadcasters don't pay Licensing fees to Artists or the copyright holder/record label for content, they pay small royalty ONLY to the Songwriter, as in the person or company that has the rights to the combination of Melody and Lyrics which usually has little to do with the artist of the song they're playing, because the broadcast is considered a performance of the song (Not a distribution of a copy), thus ASCAP collects only a performance royalty.
The performance royalty that would be due would not explain Wixen or others being able to go after Spotify for billions.
I call it Accidental Spyware. Since this sort of bug is a type of defect where user information is LEAKED to the software vendor through call-home after the user SPECIFICALLY chose the opt-out box in order to NOT leak information back to the software vendor.
It just comes to show.... even open source software normally thought of benign such as Firefox CANNOT reasonably be trusted to have implemented opt-out correctly and completely in the client, even when opt-out is offered.
This speaks in favor of having 3rd party solutions to "monitor" applications' you are using for unexpected telemetry transmission.
Radio stations don't have to pay every time they play a song --- they just pay once to acquire the media. I think Spotify claims to be a radio station, because you pick a genre of music based on a theme or artist that's used to create your custom "Radio channel", and you don't actually get to choose what exact albums or songs you listen to.
But the music associations now disagree, probably.... if their song happens to appear in the radio stream, they want to be paid as if it was an On-Demand Music service or something else that isn't protected by other rules such as Radio stations are.
Which is probably instant death, unless you're a shark..... It is Doubtful that cold-blooded sharks experience an at-all-similar physiological response to extreme cold as a warm-blooded human, however..... for one thing: it's not possible for a shark to "gasp"
It's more likely the extreme cold simply immobilizes the cold-blooded shark, whether it was gradually introduced or suddenly introduced.
However, the shark may be at an inconvenient location when it discovers the sudden cold water, and be unable to avoid the shore as a result ----- the shark would be "safe" if it were much further from shore and/or deeper underwater.
Don't blame Google for being smart, blame Holland, Bermuda, and Ireland for being dumb.
They're not being entirely dumb: they each likely get more tax $$$ out of all of this than they would ever have gotten otherwise.
We're being dumb for allowing Google to deduct the expenses from contractually-created artificial charges or "licensing royalties" owed to an international unit that (1) Doesn't pay tax for products and services delivered in the US, AND (2) Are administered in precise amounts specifically designed to shift away profits from high-tax domains to low-tax domains.
The swatter will likely be charged with felony murder being a death occurred in the act of a felony.
"Felony Murder" - in Kansas K.S.A. 21-3401 : "Homicide in the commission of, attempt to commit, or escape from an inherently dangerous felony" K.S.A. 21-3436
They will not likely be able to use that charge, because the "felony" in the form of the fraudulent call would have occurred first and been done before the shooting that did not occur at the scene of the crime. The cause of death was a shooting that happened After the felony, so the death would not be in the commission of, attempt to commit, or "escape"
Also, there are Only specific felonies; mostly things like Kidnapping, Arson, Rape, Felony Theft, Treason, Child Abuse; the statute lists nothing about making a fraudulent report with intent for the police's SWAT team to be induced into harassing
someone or maybe disrupting their affairs or damaging property or shooting people....
Why only 10 years for whoever swatted? Why not life in prison as well?
Because just like shooting someone is a ridiculously-disproportionate and Unlawful punishment to apply to an innocent person who has not even shown any obvious proof of being a criminal or a danger or having malicious intent: Life in prison is an unjust punishment for whoever swatted, since it is a disproportionate punishment for the crime of reporting a false incident. A 10 year sentence should apply based on filing a false report with malicious intention or "as a joke" against someone or intent to harass someone or disrupt the peace with reckless disregard to the risk of damage to property and safety, AND that kind of sentence should apply even if nobody dies in the incident.
The ultimate responsibility for the death falls to someone who made a decision to shoot, AND that person who made the decision to shoot And then acted by pulling the trigger should be punished just as much as anyone else who commits a 2nd degree murder.
Instead of "banning" such reviews: Require Disclosure that you were an employee --- And you can take that disclosed information into account when calculating things like the scores shown to OTHER users, they can even make it APPEAR to the user that their review will be published but de-prioritize it versus reviews when people not related to them view the google maps page: Because BANNING/Prohibiting these types of reviews means these reviews will still happen, but the reviewer will be more covert and hide the fact they could've been an employee, and that the motive for a review is employee dissatisfaction; This could result in more "noise" / bogus reviews that won't be obvious as bogus when a past employee pretends to be a customer.
Maybe, BUT it's more likely that Google is using the language of the reviews and/or public records to identify potential violations, OR Google puts a "Flag/Report Review" link and the employer finds the review and tells Google the review was made by a former employee.
You could be in the vicinity a LOT and not actually work there, OR you could shut your phone off before work, AND not everyone that posts reviews on Google necessarily has an Android phone, so even if they correlate smartphone tracking -- that is not very reliable.
Why would you publicly defame current or former employers? Not only is it rude, it's not graceful nor professional in any way to burn bridges on exit.
UNLESS the Reviewier is Lying or posting misleading information, then it's not rude, disgraceful, or non-professional. IF The former employee feels that bad about the employer, then it is not "burning bridges" to be a whistleblower on their past employer's abusive practices, because that person could not in good conscience or self-respect come back to work at that business location for that manager anyways.
But he also argues that filing a false police report should be reclassified as a felony in all states.
In reality Swatting is NOT filing a "false" police report.... it is so much more.... Swatting is filing a MALICIOUSLY-FALSE Police report with an intent to cause harm or disrupt or harass another person.
As such, the swatter should get additional charges against them based on their malicious actions --- in the case of calling in a false hostage situation, the Swatter should be charged with attempted murder, at least, And murder-related crimes if any deaths should result.
"Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?
The postal service is providing a service to the public at a rate set by them. They're in direct competition with UPS and Fedex and shouldn't have HIGHER prices than their competition.
But as for those in REMOTE areas or PO Boxes that UPS and Fedex won't service affordably...... the USPS serve a useful public function. They're not subsidizing Amazon so much as they're subsidizing mail order: but for some in remote areas, mail order is the only practical way of purchasing some simple necessities that can't be had from a local Walmart, because there is no local Walmart.
If they got 1 or 2 tickets and just happened to win, MAYBE.
If they KNEW or came by information such that a Reasonable person would come to know the chance of a winning ticket was other than intended, then those "winning" tickets should be invalidated, and in exchange they can receive a store credit to come redeem for replacement tickets after the error is fixed.
Whoever reviewed and approved of such a roof in Chicago should be fired. Due to safety risk the building should be closed until the problem is mediated.
It's not really a safety issue in itself that they don't have gutters; more of a convenience for customers not getting caught up in a bit of snow sliding off the roof.
Adding gutters "to divert snow" can increase hazard: as dangerous icicles tend to form under gutters, and the icicles are essentially frozen missiles that can fall with force.
Also, if a huge amount of snow were to slide down at once, there's no way a standard gutter would make that impossible.
My understanding is roping off certain areas is pretty common, so that works as a solution.
So, for most people, it's not hard to steal. Got it.
No way did I say not hard to steal for most people.... difficulty varies. First of all, because it's a company, you have to distinguish between an INSIDER and an OUTSIDER stealing coins. WikiLeaks has some apparently intelligent people who know enough something about IT, GPG, and keeping secrets (Until they leak them), so I think they should have the abilities required to EASILY prevent outsider theft.
Insider theft is also easy to prevent if they set it up so only Julian Assange and perhaps a 2nd in command can unlock the keys, BUT if one of those two people proves untrustworhy, then they can steal the coins just like they could drain the bank.
For the General Public --- their coins might be at risk because they left them on an exchange in the first place.
Those who learned a little more --- like how to use a wallet such as Electrum: their coins are going to be hard to steal, BUT it is still feasible by malware.
But it sounds like the roof works fine, and the complaints are it's inconvenient for people who aren't in the Apple store.....
there are no gutters to catch snow or ice. Furthermore, as the multi-level store sits along the Chicago River, the roof is sloped downward, meaning that anyone standing on the walkway along the river gets hit with falling snow and ice.
Uhm.... like the falling snow and ice that is all over the place, when it is snowing? Maybe look at the roof, and realize that's not a good place to be standing around.
"I'm too lazy to go down the street and get a prepaid card." And if you're legitimately too broke to get a bank card or a prepaid credit card,
There's no such thing as a "prepaid credit card", And "Loadable cards" incur EXTRA charges on top of merchant fees which effectively means customers paying with them are discriminatively charged MORE than the normal cash price for goods and services (due to the extra transaction tax/penalty that comes from using a prepaid instrument)
Again, not my problem. If the government doesn't like it its up to them to do something about it.
Exactly, the government should do SOMETHING about it, which is to break up Visa as a result of these monopoly/du-opoly abuses.
Yes it is. There is zero onus on my shop to serve you. I can refuse service for any reason I damned well please.
This is false. 42 U.S.C. 12181 of federal law and Title III of the ADA, and the Civil Rights act respectively ensure that you do not have the right to refuse service for "any reason you damned well please"
No market theory I've ever heard of made any significant distinction between paper dollars vs electronic dollars
They are vastly different, because Visa collects a 3% "tax" every time an electronic dollar is processed in a purchase, but it's essentially free to deposit customers' paper dollars. 8 to 9% of the US population has no access to banking or credit, they are overwhelmingly members of minority groups, the poor, and/or disabled, so if you refuse cash, there are some 25 million people you are saying can never have access to buy from you, AND these people merit protection from abusive monopolies just as much as any other groups of consumers do.
WTF are you talking about? I don't believe any of the "players" are forced to take the deal
Yes, they are.. Basically it's fining merchants who accept cash by disqualifying them from a benefit they would have otherwise --- This is what governments and regulators do, they Tax behavior they want to discourage OR subsidize behavior they want to encourage... this is no different from Microsoft providing OEMs a discount off their Windows licensing cost, But Only if they agreed to preload all systems with Windows and may not offer OS/2 or Linux as an option to customers.
Essentially $10,000 in cash per year as basically a discount from Visa fees is an offer that merchants won't or can't refuse if they have less than $10k in cash transactions/year, and even right now if SOME can refuse: Visa's intent will be clear, and they can make it less and less an attractive option for merchants to accept cash over time, until finally it might just be a clause in their merchant agreements that merchants may not accept cash at all.
And who are you to say whether its in my own best interests? If my store does basically no cash sales anyway then taking a free $10k most certainly is within my best interests.
The elimination of the cash option is NOT in any retailer's best interests, because it's restricting your freedom. The fact that cash is a choice is pretty much the only thing stopping Visa and Mastercard from significantly increasing their percentage take on every transaction.
Even if it IS in some retailer's SHORT-TERM interest; the government's job is to protect the overall public's interests --- the vast majority of whom are shoppers and employees, AND having Banking institutions incentivize merchants to refuse cash is overwhelmingly anti-consumer, and overwhelmingly class-discriminatory, so these actions by Visa are abusive to the highest of severity.
"Methane belches" don't make the top 10 sources of greenhouse gases; anyways it's not government's place to decide that X type of food shouldn't be produced, even if a certain segment of Vegans would like nothing more than to mandate everyone else accept + embrace their ideals and follow their self-deprived way of life.
PETA would release all livestock or euthanize them.
You've been broadcasting the type of misinformation PETA would have people believe. "raised in brutal factory farms where they walk knee deep in their own waste and carried by forklifts to processing when they are too sick to even walk."
Fuck your "property rights" along with the "free market" horse it rode in on.
Screw that, literal communist banter. The government's PRIMARY reason for existing is to protect the rights to my property.
Exploiting land to satiate one's own greed - and to hell with everyone and everything else
I have exclusive use of my land to exploit however I choose, and if I want it to be grassland rather than woods to support some cattle, then that's my prerogative; just like you have exclusive right to your house (if you're a homeowner) to exploit the land by building a structure on top of it and living there; in spite of all the land that has been destroyed clearing the way for your house to be built on and chopping trees down that would risk endangering your house, etc, etc.
because industry uses almost all of the state's water.
Industrial use IS HUMAN water consumption, simply because industry is using water to produce products which are satisfying human needs. The water consumed to create building materials for your shelter AND food/drink for your table is in fact human consumption of the water. Thus HUMANS consume this much water just as much as any animals, and actually -- humans take even MORE water for their own consumption. Eliminate the human population and have only cattle and industrial sites, and water consumption will go way down, BECAUSE the large human population in the state is what directly drives that "industrial" consumption both by needing the products of that industry AND by operating that industry.
WHY is it stupid? Perhaps because it's too easy to steal
It's HARD to steal, unless they are amateurish in their key management practices.
Use dedicated hardware-wallets with optional BIP39 Passphrase + Strong PIN + Strong physical security.
If they're concerned about insider attacks, then they can use a special procedure to generate credentials where No one person ever gains access to sufficient credentials to authorize a transaction.
For example: Suppose the wallet is a Trezor. You need two items to operate the device: BIP39 Passphrase to open the wallet, and PIN number to authorize each transaction.
You would need two items to recover or clone the device: 24 Recovery words and BIP39 Passphrase
Person 1 will make up and personally secure the 48-character random passphrase, and give the first 16 characters to Person 2 and Person 3, AND give the next 16 characters to Person 4 and Person 5, and finally Person 8 and Person 9 will receive the rest of the passphrase.
Person 2, Person 3, Person 4, and Person 5 begin the initialization process for the wallet and begin selecting an 8-digit PIN number. Person 2 and Person 3 handle choosing and entering the first 4 digits of the PIN and their share of the passphrase, then Person 4 and Person 5 handle entering the next 4 digits of the PIN and their share of the passphrase, then Person 8 and 9.
For wallet recovery: The 24 seed words will be divided into 3 shares. Person 1, Person 2, and Person 3, Person 8 will write down and personally secure the first 8 words
Person 4, Person 5, and Person 6, Person 9 will write down and personally secure the next 8 words
Person 7, Person 8, and Person 9, Person 10 will write down and personally secure the last 8 words
Slashdot Mirror
The "scheduled sale" is a lie. No CEO dumps ALL of his stock.
If they schedule the sale in advance and provide the required notice to shareholders, then they are legally able to sell as much stock as they want. If the CEO anticipates a drop or sees turmoil or sees themselves being fired or retiring, they may very well dump all their stock and get more back later through executive stock compensation.
Once the lawsuits come rolling in he won't have a choice. This isn't fixable. The best you can do is mitigate the damage.
It turns out that these new methods of attack affect AMD x86 CPUs, and ARM non-x86 CPUs as well,
so it's a multi-platform weakness that the only hardware safe against are essentially iPad and iPhone.
Someone may TRY to sue Intel over this, but I suspect they will not be successful, since this
isn't defective hardware per se, but hardware that doesn't resist a new kind of attack method.
So from a warranty standpoint -- the CPUs are not defective, they perform as promised, but are just vulnerable to unforseen issues which are Not specific to the way Intel's CPUs are made BUT are general to the way almost All CPUs are made by ALL the manufacturers.
You DON'T always get a free upgrade to your hardware when new unforseeable attack methods are discovered.
Instead, sorry, but if your security requirements necessitate a hardware change, then you're going to have to pay for it, and don't expect a massive charity from Intel.
How could you start an antitrust suit on the grounds of Google Chrome ?
They are modifying their websites to discourage or prevent the use of competing browser software.
Google Chrome is given away for free
The price of the product isn't actually relevant. Internet Explorer was given away "for free" too, but you paid for the OS.
In the case of Google Chrome: when you use the browser it feeds Google information about you, so in a sense Google
receives OTHER compensation than direct payment, but there's still a payment for the product in the form of lost privacy and
Ad Dollars gained from more-effective targeting; ALSO Chrome feeds into OTHER Google services by incorporating them directly.
Google doesn't make a single penny directly out of Chrome.
False. As explained Chrome has integrated Google products such as Search defaulting to Google's service, which Google is paid ad dollars for.
Chrome is able to track your browsing and what you type into the Title bar and share valuable info with Google that makes it DIFFICULT for other Ad agencies to compete with Google.
Google doesn't give a shit about which browser, as long as you use *A* browser, and go online,
Clearly that is false, otherwise Google would not be so often prompting users to use Chrome or making websites say they Work better in Chrome, or blocking access to Edge users and sometimes FF users, As explained in the original article.
if they can't serve ads for nearby restaurants and services they're essentially throwing out money.
Not "throwing out money": providing the customer the functionality that the customer paid for when they purchased the Alexa box.
I for one want an HONEST agent which will make its best effort to suggest to me the BEST options for me: NOT prioritize suggestions that may be less good for me but are better monetized for Amazon.
I say it is an unreasonable conflict of interest to be offering a "personal agent/assistant" that includes the job of recommending products sometimes AND take sponsorships at the same time.
that's used to divide up the blanket license profits between the artists.
No...... well, terrestrial broadcasters don't pay Licensing fees to Artists or the copyright holder/record label for content, they pay small royalty ONLY to the Songwriter, as in the person or company that has the rights to the combination of Melody and Lyrics which usually has little to do with the artist of the song they're playing, because the broadcast is considered a performance of the song (Not a distribution of a copy), thus ASCAP collects only a performance royalty.
The performance royalty that would be due would not explain Wixen or others being able to go after Spotify for billions.
I call it Accidental Spyware. Since this sort of bug is a type of defect where user information is LEAKED to the software vendor through call-home after the user SPECIFICALLY chose the opt-out box in order to NOT leak information back to the software vendor.
It just comes to show.... even open source software normally thought of benign such as Firefox CANNOT reasonably be trusted to have implemented opt-out correctly and completely in the client, even when opt-out is offered.
This speaks in favor of having 3rd party solutions to "monitor" applications' you are using for unexpected telemetry transmission.
Radio stations don't have to pay every time they play a song --- they just pay once to acquire the media.
I think Spotify claims to be a radio station, because you pick a genre of music based on a theme or artist that's used to create your custom "Radio channel", and you don't actually get to choose what exact albums or songs you listen to.
But the music associations now disagree, probably.... if their song happens to appear in the radio stream, they want to be paid as if it was an On-Demand Music service or something else that isn't protected by other rules such as Radio stations are.
Which is probably instant death, unless you're a shark..... It is Doubtful that cold-blooded sharks experience an at-all-similar physiological response to extreme cold as a warm-blooded human, however..... for one thing: it's not possible for a shark to "gasp"
It's more likely the extreme cold simply immobilizes the cold-blooded shark, whether it was gradually introduced or suddenly introduced.
However, the shark may be at an inconvenient location when it discovers the sudden cold water, and be unable to avoid the shore as a result ----- the shark would be "safe" if it were much further from shore and/or deeper underwater.
Don't blame Google for being smart, blame Holland, Bermuda, and Ireland for being dumb.
They're not being entirely dumb: they each likely get more tax $$$ out of all of this than they would ever have gotten otherwise.
We're being dumb for allowing Google to deduct the expenses from contractually-created artificial charges or "licensing royalties" owed to an international unit that (1) Doesn't pay tax for products and services delivered in the US, AND (2) Are administered in precise amounts specifically designed to shift away profits from high-tax domains to low-tax domains.
The swatter will likely be charged with felony murder being a death occurred in the act of a felony.
"Felony Murder" - in Kansas K.S.A. 21-3401 : "Homicide in the commission of, attempt to commit, or escape from an inherently dangerous felony" K.S.A. 21-3436
They will not likely be able to use that charge, because the "felony" in the form of the fraudulent call would have occurred first and been done before the shooting that did not occur at the scene of the crime. The cause of death was a shooting that happened After the felony, so the death would not be in the commission of, attempt to commit, or "escape"
Also, there are Only specific felonies; mostly things like Kidnapping, Arson, Rape, Felony Theft, Treason, Child Abuse; the statute lists nothing about making a fraudulent report with intent for the police's SWAT team to be induced into harassing
someone or maybe disrupting their affairs or damaging property or shooting people....
Why only 10 years for whoever swatted? Why not life in prison as well?
Because just like shooting someone is a ridiculously-disproportionate and Unlawful punishment to apply to an innocent person who has not even shown any obvious proof of being a criminal or a danger or having malicious intent:
Life in prison is an unjust punishment for whoever swatted, since it is a disproportionate punishment for the crime of reporting a false incident.
A 10 year sentence should apply based on filing a false report with malicious intention or "as a joke" against someone or intent to harass someone or disrupt the peace with reckless disregard to the risk of damage to property and safety, AND that kind of sentence should apply even if nobody dies in the incident.
The ultimate responsibility for the death falls to someone who made a decision to shoot, AND that person who made the decision to shoot And then acted by pulling the trigger should be punished just as much as anyone else who commits a 2nd degree murder.
Instead of "banning" such reviews: Require Disclosure that you were an employee --- And you can take that disclosed information into account when calculating things like the scores shown to OTHER users, they can even make it APPEAR to the user that their review will be published but de-prioritize it versus reviews when people not related to them view the google maps page: Because BANNING/Prohibiting these types of reviews means these reviews will still happen, but the reviewer will be more covert and hide the fact they could've been an employee, and that the motive for a review is employee dissatisfaction; This could result in more "noise" / bogus reviews that won't be obvious as bogus when a past employee pretends to be a customer.
Maybe, BUT it's more likely that Google is using the language of the reviews and/or public records to identify potential violations, OR Google puts a "Flag/Report Review" link and the employer finds the review and tells Google the review was made by a former employee.
You could be in the vicinity a LOT and not actually work there, OR you could shut your phone off before work, AND not everyone that posts reviews on Google necessarily has an Android phone, so even if they correlate smartphone tracking -- that is not very reliable.
Why would you publicly defame current or former employers? Not only is it rude, it's not graceful nor professional in any way to burn bridges on exit.
UNLESS the Reviewier is Lying or posting misleading information, then it's not rude, disgraceful, or non-professional.
IF The former employee feels that bad about the employer, then it is not "burning bridges" to be a whistleblower on their past employer's abusive practices, because that person could not in good conscience or self-respect come back to work at that business location for that manager anyways.
But he also argues that filing a false police report should be reclassified as a felony in all states.
In reality Swatting is NOT filing a "false" police report.... it is so much more.... Swatting is filing a MALICIOUSLY-FALSE Police report with an intent to cause harm or disrupt or harass another person.
As such, the swatter should get additional charges against them based on their malicious actions --- in the case of calling in a false hostage situation, the Swatter should be charged with attempted murder, at least, And murder-related crimes if any deaths should result.
The VERY COMPLAINT about Apple's roof is that it doesn't retain the snow, because of no gutters and the way it's sloped.
Strange, I think they're both issues.
ABSOLUTELY. It should be Life imprisonment for the officer that shot that guy, AND whoever swatted him should get 10 years.
"Why is the United States Post Office, which is losing many billions of dollars a year, while charging Amazon and others so little to deliver their packages, making Amazon richer and the Post Office dumber and poorer?
The postal service is providing a service to the public at a rate set by them. They're in direct competition with UPS and Fedex and shouldn't have HIGHER prices than their competition.
But as for those in REMOTE areas or PO Boxes that UPS and Fedex won't service affordably...... the USPS serve a useful public function. They're not subsidizing Amazon so much as they're subsidizing mail order: but for some in remote areas, mail order is the only practical way of purchasing some simple necessities that can't be had from a local Walmart, because there is no local Walmart.
If they got 1 or 2 tickets and just happened to win, MAYBE.
If they KNEW or came by information such that a Reasonable person would come to know the chance of a winning ticket was
other than intended, then those "winning" tickets should be invalidated, and in exchange they can receive a store credit to come redeem for replacement tickets after the error is fixed.
Whoever reviewed and approved of such a roof in Chicago should be fired. Due to safety risk the building should be closed until the problem is mediated.
It's not really a safety issue in itself that they don't have gutters; more of a convenience for customers not getting caught up in a bit of snow sliding off the roof.
Adding gutters "to divert snow" can increase hazard: as dangerous icicles tend to form under gutters, and the icicles are essentially frozen missiles that can fall with force.
Also, if a huge amount of snow were to slide down at once, there's no way a standard gutter would make that impossible.
My understanding is roping off certain areas is pretty common, so that works as a solution.
So, for most people, it's not hard to steal. Got it.
No way did I say not hard to steal for most people.... difficulty varies. First of all, because it's a company, you have to distinguish between an INSIDER and an OUTSIDER stealing coins. WikiLeaks has some apparently intelligent people who know enough something about IT, GPG,
and keeping secrets (Until they leak them), so I think they should have the abilities required to EASILY prevent outsider theft.
Insider theft is also easy to prevent if they set it up so only Julian Assange and perhaps a 2nd in command can unlock the keys, BUT
if one of those two people proves untrustworhy, then they can steal the coins just like they could drain the bank.
For the General Public --- their coins might be at risk because they left them on an exchange in the first place.
Those who learned a little more --- like how to use a wallet such as Electrum: their coins are going to be hard to steal,
BUT it is still feasible by malware.
It looks pretty. Maybe an engineering problem.
But it sounds like the roof works fine, and the complaints are it's inconvenient for people who aren't in the Apple store.....
there are no gutters to catch snow or ice. Furthermore, as the multi-level store sits along the Chicago River, the roof is sloped downward, meaning that anyone standing on the walkway along the river gets hit with falling snow and ice.
Uhm.... like the falling snow and ice that is all over the place, when it is snowing? Maybe look at the roof, and realize that's not a good place to be standing around.
"I'm too lazy to go down the street and get a prepaid card." And if you're legitimately too broke to get a bank card or a prepaid credit card,
There's no such thing as a "prepaid credit card", And "Loadable cards" incur EXTRA charges on top of merchant fees which effectively means customers paying with them are discriminatively charged MORE than the normal cash price for goods and services (due to the extra transaction tax/penalty that comes from using a prepaid instrument)
Again, not my problem. If the government doesn't like it its up to them to do something about it.
Exactly, the government should do SOMETHING about it, which is to break up Visa as a result of these monopoly/du-opoly abuses.
Yes it is. There is zero onus on my shop to serve you. I can refuse service for any reason I damned well please.
This is false. 42 U.S.C. 12181 of federal law and Title III of the ADA, and the Civil Rights act respectively ensure that you do not have the right to refuse service for "any reason you damned well please"
No market theory I've ever heard of made any significant distinction between paper dollars vs electronic dollars
They are vastly different, because Visa collects a 3% "tax" every time an electronic dollar is processed in a purchase,
but it's essentially free to deposit customers' paper dollars. 8 to 9% of the US population has no access to banking or credit,
they are overwhelmingly members of minority groups, the poor, and/or disabled, so if you refuse cash, there are some 25 million people
you are saying can never have access to buy from you, AND these people merit protection from abusive monopolies just
as much as any other groups of consumers do.
WTF are you talking about? I don't believe any of the "players" are forced to take the deal
Yes, they are.. Basically it's fining merchants who accept cash by disqualifying them from a benefit they would have otherwise --- This is what governments and regulators do, they Tax behavior they want to discourage OR subsidize behavior they want to encourage... this is no different from Microsoft providing OEMs a discount off their Windows licensing cost, But Only if they agreed to preload all systems with Windows and may not offer OS/2 or Linux as an option to customers.
Essentially $10,000 in cash per year as basically a discount from Visa fees is an offer that merchants won't or can't refuse
if they have less than $10k in cash transactions/year, and even right now if SOME can refuse: Visa's intent will be clear, and
they can make it less and less an attractive option for merchants to accept cash over time, until finally it might just be a clause in their merchant agreements that merchants may not accept cash at all.
And who are you to say whether its in my own best interests? If my store does basically no cash sales anyway then taking a free $10k most certainly is within my best interests.
The elimination of the cash option is NOT in any retailer's best interests, because it's restricting your freedom.
The fact that cash is a choice is pretty much the only thing stopping Visa and Mastercard from significantly increasing their percentage take on every transaction.
Even if it IS in some retailer's SHORT-TERM interest; the government's job is to protect the overall public's interests --- the vast majority of whom are shoppers and employees, AND having Banking institutions incentivize merchants to refuse cash is overwhelmingly anti-consumer, and overwhelmingly class-discriminatory, so these actions by Visa are abusive to the highest of severity.
Not via methane belches, they don't.
"Methane belches" don't make the top 10 sources of greenhouse gases; anyways it's not
government's place to decide that X type of food shouldn't be produced, even if a certain segment of Vegans would
like nothing more than to mandate everyone else accept + embrace their ideals and follow their self-deprived way of life.
PETA would release all livestock or euthanize them.
You've been broadcasting the type of misinformation PETA would have people believe.
"raised in brutal factory farms where they walk knee deep in their own waste and carried by forklifts to processing when they are too sick to even walk."
Fuck your "property rights" along with the "free market" horse it rode in on.
Screw that, literal communist banter. The government's PRIMARY reason for existing is to protect the rights to my property.
Exploiting land to satiate one's own greed - and to hell with everyone and everything else
I have exclusive use of my land to exploit however I choose, and if I want it to be grassland rather than woods to support some cattle, then that's my prerogative; just like you have exclusive right to your house (if you're a homeowner) to exploit the land by building a structure on top of it and living there; in spite of all the land that has been destroyed clearing the way for your house to be built on and chopping trees down that would risk endangering your house, etc, etc.
because industry uses almost all of the state's water.
Industrial use IS HUMAN water consumption, simply because industry is using water to
produce products which are satisfying human needs. The water consumed to create building materials for your shelter AND
food/drink for your table is in fact human consumption of the water. Thus HUMANS consume this much water just as much as
any animals, and actually -- humans take even MORE water for their own consumption. Eliminate the human population and
have only cattle and industrial sites, and water consumption will go way down, BECAUSE the large human population in the state is
what directly drives that "industrial" consumption both by needing the products of that industry AND by operating that industry.
WHY is it stupid? Perhaps because it's too easy to steal
It's HARD to steal, unless they are amateurish in their key management practices.
Use dedicated hardware-wallets with optional BIP39 Passphrase + Strong PIN + Strong physical security.
If they're concerned about insider attacks, then they can use a special procedure to generate credentials where No one person ever gains access to sufficient credentials to authorize a transaction.
For example: Suppose the wallet is a Trezor.
You need two items to operate the device: BIP39 Passphrase to open the wallet, and PIN number to authorize each transaction.
You would need two items to recover or clone the device: 24 Recovery words and BIP39 Passphrase
Person 1 will make up and personally secure the 48-character random passphrase, and give the first 16 characters to Person 2 and Person 3, AND give the next 16 characters to Person 4 and Person 5, and finally Person 8 and Person 9 will receive the rest of the passphrase.
Person 2, Person 3, Person 4, and Person 5 begin the initialization process for the wallet and begin selecting an 8-digit PIN number.
Person 2 and Person 3 handle choosing and entering the first 4 digits of the PIN and their share of the passphrase, then Person 4 and Person 5 handle entering the next 4 digits of the PIN and their share of the passphrase, then Person 8 and 9.
For wallet recovery: The 24 seed words will be divided into 3 shares.
Person 1, Person 2, and Person 3, Person 8 will write down and personally secure the first 8 words
Person 4, Person 5, and Person 6, Person 9 will write down and personally secure the next 8 words
Person 7, Person 8, and Person 9, Person 10 will write down and personally secure the last 8 words