I think it'd be safer to avoid making it something like a lower fee for a license renewal. Go for something more likely to encourage families to agree to the decision--maybe defray the final costs for donors, especially any costs associated with donating, since now it's quite common for dying to be rather expensive if you aren't DOA.
Actually, it turns out that the difference between a cadaver's anatomy and a live person's anatomy is sufficient that most doctors actually get their anatomy training on the job--as in, when they get to see inside live people. The best anatomy texts we have are from imaging of live people, followed by a project that worked using donated bodies of people who died under circumstances that meant their body could be frozen at the point of death (or close enough) and then sliced (I think the images are online somewhere), followed by the result of Nazi crimes against humanity in the form of vivisecting some human victims for science.
This isn't to say that there's definitely other areas of training and research for which donated bodies are highly useful--but, well, some aren't as useful as you think, and providing a cell line is something you can do without dying. (Seriously, I could whip up a cell line from myself given a bit of prep and lab time. Immortal cell lines are easy, too. Hint: In the body they're called 'cancer.')
When there's reports of people waking up in the morgue or, even worse, having the medical examiner realizing they're not quite dead yet when starting the autopsy, I think it's safe to say we're not terribly good at telling if somebody's dead even off the old rules--and the organs are mostly useless for donation once the person's reached the no-heartbeat flavor of dead. (I think there's a few things you can still use, and in fact harvest for a bit after that, but...)
The problem is that we've got unfortunately good evidence that we are not as good as we need to be about telling if somebody's brain dead--which is what you want for organ donation--and there's been questions raised, including simply on the ethics side, of if a doctor who knows the patient is a donor will be as careful about making sure the person is brain dead as we need them to be. I know that in the US, currently the doctor is supposed to have no clue--until brain death is declared, nobody's supposed to even check--but how true that is...
It doesn't help that, to put it bluntly, the hospital gets money even if you(r estate) doesn't.
Anyway. Basically, the problem is that the ethics involved look pretty good, right up until you actually start looking, and people freak out about what may actually be the most ethical possible situation of having somebody asking for their ventilator to be switched off before they hit shut-in syndrome, and for it to be done at a hospital so their organs can be donate. Yes, you're turning off somebody's life support so you can harvest their organs--but you're not ever going to get any better consent, and as long as they've the right to ask for their life support to be turned off the choice ought to be theirs.
Actually, as smartphones get more ubiquitous and even dumbphones gain more capabilities, the cost of fixing the problem should drop--we're already seeing a shift towards electronic ticketing, how much more effort would be needed to simply have it set up so you can have your phone self-update with the connecting flight information as you go, so it'll be up-to-date and you will know things like "Oh, hey, my connecting flight changed" as soon as possible.
This sort of thing varies by the passenger's sex, age, and general body language...and the era at which you take the trip, since some of these problems have dropped simply because the bus is becoming more and more the choice of people who are not merely too poor to get a plane ticket.
My own preference--admittedly helped by the fact that there's actually a station near enough me for it to be feasible--is to take the train...when I can actually find a route that gets me where I want. With all the talk about how awesome public transit is, you'd think some money would be getting put into getting the rail system nudged back towards where it doesn't seem to skip some states entirely.
Admittedly, some of the problem here seems to be people being just plain idiots--I actually am used to the luggage tags my suitcases get being very clearly intended to stay on through a transfer or two because the airport code for offloading is typically not the next stop on my journey, and my social media is being kept very much away from such things as my legal name. I'd think that doing things like posting pics of plane tickets with things like QR codes not censored is begging for Bad Things to happen--the only surprise here is that includes 'having your flight booking altered.'
You've done the exact same thing you've accused BBC of, claiming that overall pull requests are accepted at the same rate when this is not true. Women were statistically significantly less likely to have their code accepted than men as outsiders and statistically more likely to have their code accepted as insiders.
Citation please? From the way the entry here is (horribly) written, it looks like gender is less of a factor than being a known coder to the group--which means that if you're going to do the statistical comparison properly you're going to have to be careful to make sure you break it apart on both the gender variable (unknown vs known woman vs known man) and on 'known to community' variable, being careful to make sure the numbers you're comparing match across the board.
Doing a bit of work to find the paper itself reveals that it's not peer-reviewed which probably explains why a read-through of the methodology is leaving me extremely skeptical on if they controlled for this obvious confound, especially since there might be additional confounds--for example, I'm not really seeing any attempt to control for the possibility that the rate at which skilled female coders deliberately adopt genderless/gender-neutral personas may be higher than it is for skilled male coders, meaning that the higher acceptance rate (of 6.2% higher then men's) is actually an artifact of that--and hey, since somebody might as well point out the elephant in the room, let's bring up the possibility that some people might have their GitHub persona more accurately reflect their gender than their LinkedIn profile because there are some employment discrimination suits you don't want to be the one trying to win.
I'm also somewhat skeptical of the whole idea that changing larger parts of code is automatically less cautious, since this seems a rather bad assumption on the whole. I would expect the amount of testing done before submitting the code to be a better indicator--but you can't measure that so easily, even if a small tweak could easily enough result in a kludge in the code becoming suddenly broken, meaning that a more cautious coder might end up submitting a larger amount of changes because they're both submitting the tweak and what is necessary to get the program working again after the tweak. (I'd actually be unlikely to submit them separately, unless the tweak isn't essential to what I did to get the program work again and the kludge itself is a particularly ugly thing that needs fixing no matter what.)
These are the kinds of things that will get brought up in the peer review process for a paper, so really, I'm not surprised in the least that it isn't.
As a side note, I am, however, pleased to have learned from this paper that, in fact, I can have my LinkedIn profile be gender-neutral, which is my personal preference.
I check work email first thing when I wake up hoping to see confirmation that I am not already half a day's work behind schedule.
Offhand, I'd say that 'not already half a day's work behind schedule' would count as happy news. I usually check my subject lines and if I read anything it's either important or something I think I'll enjoy reading while getting ready for the day.
Honestly the main problem with them is that they're not smart--most implementations are pretty buggy and annoying, and it's ultimately easier to turn the 'feature' off than have to grovel over any text of decent length in order to make sure all of them are right. They'll curl when they oughtn't, they'll not curl when they ought, and they'll go the wrong way, pretty much entirely at random. About the only decent way I can see of making any implementation of an automatic text adjuster so it's not mangling things is to make it so you have to flag things--so it doesn't just cheerfully go altering apostrophes and quote marks, but you have to do something extra (from using a hotkey combo to having it followed by a different character that flags it for the program) to get it to do so.
I did use the latter technique a lot for making my life easier when I was taking scientific and technical notes on a computer--I used particular key combos as placeholders, so I could go back on a unicode-capable machine and insert the proper characters or alter the formatting, since I could type that pretty much as fast as the instructor went. As shorthands go, it worked very well for setting up for later adjustment for proper formatting.
This is about the only time I'm going to talk about this--but it's very, very reassuring to me to have gotten to see you around, just being proof that one can be a calm, rational being and trans, Ms. Hudson. You've very correct about the problem with a member of a minority screwing things up for everyone--and that can include creating, causing, and/or strengthening stereotypes that will cause some people to opt to be closeted simply because they don't want to be seen that way.
Seeing the ignored question--yeah, if she's going to insist that only trans people get a voice in trans issues, she needs to answer when asked if she's coming out about it or not. It'd be an entirely different issue if she was insisting that it should never matter if somebody is or is not trans--that this should not get those who are or aren't any different treatment aside from what might be medically necessary.
Here's a tip. Women respond better when you take their concerns seriously, rather than assuming they are just being angsty because clearly they have nothing to complain about.
Tip: This is true regardless of the person's gender.
It is, however, important to note that we've lately been socializing girls to complain--and I've run into some examples where they will raise concerns simply to keep your attention on them, because their concerns are the most important things in the world...no matter how astoundingly low-priority & insensitive to others' problems they might be. We're now having a not-insignificant number of people getting angry for daring to try to break that socialization. This is a concern, if nothing else because somebody being concerned about if the food you can barely afford is organic, fair-trade and vegan (all of which raise the costs) is...distinctly insensitive.
Oh, I do realize that--and I was not talking about "the [traditional] process," if I meant that you would not need to have those brackets in there.
Regardless of how effective the traditional process is or is not, something like this ought to be used before it's applied for it to be particularly worthwhile--if it's effective, and being done by the means both of us posited (wherein the majority of the content isn't actually inspected by a human), then it's less invasive of privacy than the traditional method, and you can use the traditional method for those people who don't have the required social media presence.
Do it late, and I suspect it'd take incredible optimism to expect even a tiny minority of people not already ruled out to have the required heavy social media presence over a sufficient period of time. Therefore, it'd be even more pointless then running hearing screenings for students at a school for the deaf.
Having been watching with some amusement the business news on Twitter, I have to agree that it's embarrassing, not fatal--mostly because I'd be amazed if Twitter managed to survive as a company long enough for this to manage to do much worse damage.
I'm not saying I particularly relish this sort of all-encompassing profiling from law enforcement; I am simply saying it will clearly be pretty effective at clearing a subset of people who 1. Are not threats and 2. have been using social media heavily for years.
How they choose to handle the other group of people who do not have a long and credible social media presence is another matter entirely.
Actually, I'd say they're related problems: If you're using it early in the process and the only real difference between that subset and those without that long and credible social media presence is that the first group gets a lighter look than traditionally done at the traditional methods for profiling, then it may actually be in your favor to build up that long and credible social media presence & share it. If nothing else, you should have some idea what's there, and might actually result in greater privacy if the bulk of the evaluation is done with a computer program that merely spits out stats & a list of posts needing human eyes if/when needed.
If they use it late in the process, then probably there will be functionally no difference between the groups and no point to asking, because it won't matter.
If they decide that their mistake this year was being not progressive enough--to double down on the very mistakes this round that you cite above, especially on the issue of having ill-concealed (at best) contempt for the very people you need voting for you--then that may be rather too likely.
Please, place the blame correctly: The Law of Unintended Consequences is the problem here, not Capitalism. Changing the basis of your economic system won't fix anything. I doubt Capitalism is behind a system that, for example, penalizes an entire family because one of the children dared have the gall of daring to save money for college. What you need is to get rid of those politicians who benefit from making it difficult for people to escape slums--it's a lot easier to win elections on a whole "Help the poor!" line when you make sure there's lots of poor people.
I don't know how to tell you this, but "Take them all out and shoot them" is not an option on the ballot anywhere. I suspect if it was, it'd have 'won' this presidential election.
Given the problem is the battery as I recall, I'd go for it powering on only when plugged in, disable anything not 911 service and customer service, the background message including very explicit directions to "REMOVE THE BATTERY," and roll out a very solid backup-to-computer program specifically for it that will get everything off the phone & scrub the phone's memory in prep for trading it in.
My point is that rather little has been done to make sure customers know about the range of alternatives--and that people on the sidelines do, because while I don't own a Samsung Galaxy Note 7, this debacle definitely has me distinctly less likely to buy a Samsung product. The issue isn't merely "Are buyers of this phone getting the shaft?" but also how good the effort to ensure that these deals are known.
T-Mobile and others are offering what Samsung has offered. Full Refund + $100 if you get another Samsung phone (S7) or $25 credit. I'm not sure on the contract side but if I extended my contract or signed up for service based on this device you'd have a good argument to terminate that deal. I do however think when you pay $800+ for a phone it should work, be safe as in not blow up and last as long as your contract. The carriers in this case aren't at fault but they should do everything to keep the business.
Good to know, but I'd expect somebody to have made a point of running ads about this. I've seen ads surprisingly recently trying to get you to buy this specific phone--as in, my first thought was "Waaait I thought that phone got yanked from the market for being a bomb"--and if nothing else letting those run is an utter waste of ad money on Samsung's part. They'd stand to benefit as much as the carriers from letting this deal be known...and it'd get the last remaining ones turned in pretty quickly, likely.
Actually, I can see one reason alone and that's pretty much entirely the fact that while I've seen a lot of publicity about how amazingly bad these particular phones are? I've not actually seen that much publicity on what the US cell companies are going to do if you go in and say "I got this burning POS as part of the deal when you sold me that 2-year contract, you don't want me using this, so what can you do for me?" Would it be that hard to be nicely public about how if you've got a phone recalled because it's a burning POS like this, they'll treat you well? Especially if your competition isn't thinking that this might be something customers would care about?
It might cost them a bit to give a good deal now--but it'd be good marketing & they can probably set it up so if/when Samsung pays out money over this debacle, they get the payments for those phones they exchanged for credit.
It's Japan. Due to historical and cultural factors, no matter how trendy 'cashless' gets? Any government there with a IQ higher than room temperature in Celsius will know that trying to force it will just result in something like Pasmo cards being used to replace government-issued coins and bills. When a culture sees money as unclean and doesn't move itself over to cashless once you can never touch money again? It's not going to happen.
With batteries, emissions would also include leaks, and disposal concerns which are...significant. Basically the main reason they stopped insisting batteries went into hazardous waste instead of regular trash is because people were tossing them into the regular trash anyway.
I'd actually expect these to be safer on the disposal side, especially since once no longer producing power...well, they are diamonds.
Which is why, as I recall, this is one of the cases where it intent is irrelevant and you have to sign papers saying you understand why you are not supposed to have files on non-secured, unauthorized machines. Given she's a lawyer, she either is an impressively incompetent one or she read the papers carefully before signing. Really, the only good reason to have a private server there is if you are planning to do something like what Snowden did--and then you'd want it to be a silent man in the middle that simply retains copies of everything, not where the sole copies of anything resides, and likely very secure because it would be wise to be assured of sufficient forwarning to GTFO if it's discovered.
Slashdot Mirror
I think it'd be safer to avoid making it something like a lower fee for a license renewal. Go for something more likely to encourage families to agree to the decision--maybe defray the final costs for donors, especially any costs associated with donating, since now it's quite common for dying to be rather expensive if you aren't DOA.
Actually, it turns out that the difference between a cadaver's anatomy and a live person's anatomy is sufficient that most doctors actually get their anatomy training on the job--as in, when they get to see inside live people. The best anatomy texts we have are from imaging of live people, followed by a project that worked using donated bodies of people who died under circumstances that meant their body could be frozen at the point of death (or close enough) and then sliced (I think the images are online somewhere), followed by the result of Nazi crimes against humanity in the form of vivisecting some human victims for science.
This isn't to say that there's definitely other areas of training and research for which donated bodies are highly useful--but, well, some aren't as useful as you think, and providing a cell line is something you can do without dying. (Seriously, I could whip up a cell line from myself given a bit of prep and lab time. Immortal cell lines are easy, too. Hint: In the body they're called 'cancer.')
The rules for Dead are pretty solid.
When there's reports of people waking up in the morgue or, even worse, having the medical examiner realizing they're not quite dead yet when starting the autopsy, I think it's safe to say we're not terribly good at telling if somebody's dead even off the old rules--and the organs are mostly useless for donation once the person's reached the no-heartbeat flavor of dead. (I think there's a few things you can still use, and in fact harvest for a bit after that, but...)
The problem is that we've got unfortunately good evidence that we are not as good as we need to be about telling if somebody's brain dead--which is what you want for organ donation--and there's been questions raised, including simply on the ethics side, of if a doctor who knows the patient is a donor will be as careful about making sure the person is brain dead as we need them to be. I know that in the US, currently the doctor is supposed to have no clue--until brain death is declared, nobody's supposed to even check--but how true that is...
It doesn't help that, to put it bluntly, the hospital gets money even if you(r estate) doesn't.
Anyway. Basically, the problem is that the ethics involved look pretty good, right up until you actually start looking, and people freak out about what may actually be the most ethical possible situation of having somebody asking for their ventilator to be switched off before they hit shut-in syndrome, and for it to be done at a hospital so their organs can be donate. Yes, you're turning off somebody's life support so you can harvest their organs--but you're not ever going to get any better consent, and as long as they've the right to ask for their life support to be turned off the choice ought to be theirs.
Actually, as smartphones get more ubiquitous and even dumbphones gain more capabilities, the cost of fixing the problem should drop--we're already seeing a shift towards electronic ticketing, how much more effort would be needed to simply have it set up so you can have your phone self-update with the connecting flight information as you go, so it'll be up-to-date and you will know things like "Oh, hey, my connecting flight changed" as soon as possible.
This sort of thing varies by the passenger's sex, age, and general body language...and the era at which you take the trip, since some of these problems have dropped simply because the bus is becoming more and more the choice of people who are not merely too poor to get a plane ticket.
My own preference--admittedly helped by the fact that there's actually a station near enough me for it to be feasible--is to take the train...when I can actually find a route that gets me where I want. With all the talk about how awesome public transit is, you'd think some money would be getting put into getting the rail system nudged back towards where it doesn't seem to skip some states entirely.
Admittedly, some of the problem here seems to be people being just plain idiots--I actually am used to the luggage tags my suitcases get being very clearly intended to stay on through a transfer or two because the airport code for offloading is typically not the next stop on my journey, and my social media is being kept very much away from such things as my legal name. I'd think that doing things like posting pics of plane tickets with things like QR codes not censored is begging for Bad Things to happen--the only surprise here is that includes 'having your flight booking altered.'
You've done the exact same thing you've accused BBC of, claiming that overall pull requests are accepted at the same rate when this is not true. Women were statistically significantly less likely to have their code accepted than men as outsiders and statistically more likely to have their code accepted as insiders.
Citation please? From the way the entry here is (horribly) written, it looks like gender is less of a factor than being a known coder to the group--which means that if you're going to do the statistical comparison properly you're going to have to be careful to make sure you break it apart on both the gender variable (unknown vs known woman vs known man) and on 'known to community' variable, being careful to make sure the numbers you're comparing match across the board.
Doing a bit of work to find the paper itself reveals that it's not peer-reviewed which probably explains why a read-through of the methodology is leaving me extremely skeptical on if they controlled for this obvious confound, especially since there might be additional confounds--for example, I'm not really seeing any attempt to control for the possibility that the rate at which skilled female coders deliberately adopt genderless/gender-neutral personas may be higher than it is for skilled male coders, meaning that the higher acceptance rate (of 6.2% higher then men's) is actually an artifact of that--and hey, since somebody might as well point out the elephant in the room, let's bring up the possibility that some people might have their GitHub persona more accurately reflect their gender than their LinkedIn profile because there are some employment discrimination suits you don't want to be the one trying to win.
I'm also somewhat skeptical of the whole idea that changing larger parts of code is automatically less cautious, since this seems a rather bad assumption on the whole. I would expect the amount of testing done before submitting the code to be a better indicator--but you can't measure that so easily, even if a small tweak could easily enough result in a kludge in the code becoming suddenly broken, meaning that a more cautious coder might end up submitting a larger amount of changes because they're both submitting the tweak and what is necessary to get the program working again after the tweak. (I'd actually be unlikely to submit them separately, unless the tweak isn't essential to what I did to get the program work again and the kludge itself is a particularly ugly thing that needs fixing no matter what.)
These are the kinds of things that will get brought up in the peer review process for a paper, so really, I'm not surprised in the least that it isn't.
As a side note, I am, however, pleased to have learned from this paper that, in fact, I can have my LinkedIn profile be gender-neutral, which is my personal preference.
I check work email first thing when I wake up hoping to see confirmation that I am not already half a day's work behind schedule.
Offhand, I'd say that 'not already half a day's work behind schedule' would count as happy news. I usually check my subject lines and if I read anything it's either important or something I think I'll enjoy reading while getting ready for the day.
Honestly the main problem with them is that they're not smart--most implementations are pretty buggy and annoying, and it's ultimately easier to turn the 'feature' off than have to grovel over any text of decent length in order to make sure all of them are right. They'll curl when they oughtn't, they'll not curl when they ought, and they'll go the wrong way, pretty much entirely at random. About the only decent way I can see of making any implementation of an automatic text adjuster so it's not mangling things is to make it so you have to flag things--so it doesn't just cheerfully go altering apostrophes and quote marks, but you have to do something extra (from using a hotkey combo to having it followed by a different character that flags it for the program) to get it to do so.
I did use the latter technique a lot for making my life easier when I was taking scientific and technical notes on a computer--I used particular key combos as placeholders, so I could go back on a unicode-capable machine and insert the proper characters or alter the formatting, since I could type that pretty much as fast as the instructor went. As shorthands go, it worked very well for setting up for later adjustment for proper formatting.
This is about the only time I'm going to talk about this--but it's very, very reassuring to me to have gotten to see you around, just being proof that one can be a calm, rational being and trans, Ms. Hudson. You've very correct about the problem with a member of a minority screwing things up for everyone--and that can include creating, causing, and/or strengthening stereotypes that will cause some people to opt to be closeted simply because they don't want to be seen that way.
Seeing the ignored question--yeah, if she's going to insist that only trans people get a voice in trans issues, she needs to answer when asked if she's coming out about it or not. It'd be an entirely different issue if she was insisting that it should never matter if somebody is or is not trans--that this should not get those who are or aren't any different treatment aside from what might be medically necessary.
Here's a tip. Women respond better when you take their concerns seriously, rather than assuming they are just being angsty because clearly they have nothing to complain about.
Tip: This is true regardless of the person's gender.
It is, however, important to note that we've lately been socializing girls to complain--and I've run into some examples where they will raise concerns simply to keep your attention on them, because their concerns are the most important things in the world...no matter how astoundingly low-priority & insensitive to others' problems they might be. We're now having a not-insignificant number of people getting angry for daring to try to break that socialization. This is a concern, if nothing else because somebody being concerned about if the food you can barely afford is organic, fair-trade and vegan (all of which raise the costs) is...distinctly insensitive.
Oh, I do realize that--and I was not talking about "the [traditional] process," if I meant that you would not need to have those brackets in there.
Regardless of how effective the traditional process is or is not, something like this ought to be used before it's applied for it to be particularly worthwhile--if it's effective, and being done by the means both of us posited (wherein the majority of the content isn't actually inspected by a human), then it's less invasive of privacy than the traditional method, and you can use the traditional method for those people who don't have the required social media presence.
Do it late, and I suspect it'd take incredible optimism to expect even a tiny minority of people not already ruled out to have the required heavy social media presence over a sufficient period of time. Therefore, it'd be even more pointless then running hearing screenings for students at a school for the deaf.
Having been watching with some amusement the business news on Twitter, I have to agree that it's embarrassing, not fatal--mostly because I'd be amazed if Twitter managed to survive as a company long enough for this to manage to do much worse damage.
I'm not saying I particularly relish this sort of all-encompassing profiling from law enforcement; I am simply saying it will clearly be pretty effective at clearing a subset of people who 1. Are not threats and 2. have been using social media heavily for years.
How they choose to handle the other group of people who do not have a long and credible social media presence is another matter entirely.
Actually, I'd say they're related problems: If you're using it early in the process and the only real difference between that subset and those without that long and credible social media presence is that the first group gets a lighter look than traditionally done at the traditional methods for profiling, then it may actually be in your favor to build up that long and credible social media presence & share it. If nothing else, you should have some idea what's there, and might actually result in greater privacy if the bulk of the evaluation is done with a computer program that merely spits out stats & a list of posts needing human eyes if/when needed.
If they use it late in the process, then probably there will be functionally no difference between the groups and no point to asking, because it won't matter.
If they decide that their mistake this year was being not progressive enough--to double down on the very mistakes this round that you cite above, especially on the issue of having ill-concealed (at best) contempt for the very people you need voting for you--then that may be rather too likely.
Please, place the blame correctly: The Law of Unintended Consequences is the problem here, not Capitalism. Changing the basis of your economic system won't fix anything. I doubt Capitalism is behind a system that, for example, penalizes an entire family because one of the children dared have the gall of daring to save money for college. What you need is to get rid of those politicians who benefit from making it difficult for people to escape slums--it's a lot easier to win elections on a whole "Help the poor!" line when you make sure there's lots of poor people.
I don't know how to tell you this, but "Take them all out and shoot them" is not an option on the ballot anywhere. I suspect if it was, it'd have 'won' this presidential election.
Reread the original statement, though it does still sound about right: I've met rather a lot of Democrats who would prefer the dead dog.
Given the problem is the battery as I recall, I'd go for it powering on only when plugged in, disable anything not 911 service and customer service, the background message including very explicit directions to "REMOVE THE BATTERY," and roll out a very solid backup-to-computer program specifically for it that will get everything off the phone & scrub the phone's memory in prep for trading it in.
My point is that rather little has been done to make sure customers know about the range of alternatives--and that people on the sidelines do, because while I don't own a Samsung Galaxy Note 7, this debacle definitely has me distinctly less likely to buy a Samsung product. The issue isn't merely "Are buyers of this phone getting the shaft?" but also how good the effort to ensure that these deals are known.
T-Mobile and others are offering what Samsung has offered. Full Refund + $100 if you get another Samsung phone (S7) or $25 credit. I'm not sure on the contract side but if I extended my contract or signed up for service based on this device you'd have a good argument to terminate that deal. I do however think when you pay $800+ for a phone it should work, be safe as in not blow up and last as long as your contract. The carriers in this case aren't at fault but they should do everything to keep the business.
Good to know, but I'd expect somebody to have made a point of running ads about this. I've seen ads surprisingly recently trying to get you to buy this specific phone--as in, my first thought was "Waaait I thought that phone got yanked from the market for being a bomb"--and if nothing else letting those run is an utter waste of ad money on Samsung's part. They'd stand to benefit as much as the carriers from letting this deal be known...and it'd get the last remaining ones turned in pretty quickly, likely.
Actually, I can see one reason alone and that's pretty much entirely the fact that while I've seen a lot of publicity about how amazingly bad these particular phones are? I've not actually seen that much publicity on what the US cell companies are going to do if you go in and say "I got this burning POS as part of the deal when you sold me that 2-year contract, you don't want me using this, so what can you do for me?" Would it be that hard to be nicely public about how if you've got a phone recalled because it's a burning POS like this, they'll treat you well? Especially if your competition isn't thinking that this might be something customers would care about?
It might cost them a bit to give a good deal now--but it'd be good marketing & they can probably set it up so if/when Samsung pays out money over this debacle, they get the payments for those phones they exchanged for credit.
It's Japan. Due to historical and cultural factors, no matter how trendy 'cashless' gets? Any government there with a IQ higher than room temperature in Celsius will know that trying to force it will just result in something like Pasmo cards being used to replace government-issued coins and bills. When a culture sees money as unclean and doesn't move itself over to cashless once you can never touch money again? It's not going to happen.
With batteries, emissions would also include leaks, and disposal concerns which are...significant. Basically the main reason they stopped insisting batteries went into hazardous waste instead of regular trash is because people were tossing them into the regular trash anyway.
I'd actually expect these to be safer on the disposal side, especially since once no longer producing power...well, they are diamonds.
Which is why, as I recall, this is one of the cases where it intent is irrelevant and you have to sign papers saying you understand why you are not supposed to have files on non-secured, unauthorized machines. Given she's a lawyer, she either is an impressively incompetent one or she read the papers carefully before signing. Really, the only good reason to have a private server there is if you are planning to do something like what Snowden did--and then you'd want it to be a silent man in the middle that simply retains copies of everything, not where the sole copies of anything resides, and likely very secure because it would be wise to be assured of sufficient forwarning to GTFO if it's discovered.