You probably say "thanks" and update your insurance claim. Since they have less wiggle room to not pay. The car is wrecked, now. Not stolen and potentially recoverable.
No, not preferable to whom. Preferable under which conditions. If the choice is between becoming a martyr or capture and trial by western law, which do you suppose is preferable?
Very few people who have actual goals desire becoming a martyr. Its sort of a least worst alternative status.
I said your tax scheme could be gamed. Which it can. Just like the tax laws we have today are gamed by people and corporation. Or aren't you aware of trusts, incorporation in select localities, and any number of other procedures which are already in place and legal?
Let us imagine that taxes are super progressive and asymptotic to 100% taxation like you suggest. Unless you reach your absurdly high levels of taxation at absurdly high (read: useless) levels of profit, shifting the bulk of operations out of US jurisdiction immediately and pretty much totally avoids an enormous tax burden. The corporation need only leave behind a retail arm that is, essentially, a non-profit organization. Its aims are only to cover the costs of distribution. The foreign company makes all the profits on its near-retail price sale of goods to the domestic distributor. The domestic distributor has a small markup to cover the costs of domestic transport, retail salespeople, building upkeep, and reports no profits. Or practically no profits. The corporation doesn't care that its earning its profits in Switzerland or Brazil or where the hell ever else is a better taxing jurisdiction. Similar behavior for individuals exist. Some of which is less legal. But if your overseas bank doesn't send the IRS an INT-1099, the IRS doesn't collect or know about your foreign income, even though you are obligated by US law to report it. Or wealthy people may elect to move their citizenship to other, more reasonable, countries. What will the US do? Tell them they can't travel to the states and spend their absurd amounts of money as tourists or resident aliens? Right.. Or they will divide their assets into multiple privately held corporations, trusts, or other asset containers. They'll work it so their reportable income is low, without sacrificing much (if any) of their lifestyle.
But I'm glad you "think the courts are more competent than that" and that the ability to restructure debt and income is the only problem with your ideas.
I doubt your suggestions would hold much hope for improvement. Limiting influence is decidedly difficult. After all, are we going to start legislating who may be friends with whom? No? Then the politically connected will have an overwhelmingly greater influence than those that are not (which is.. most of us). Limit the size of corporations? Ah, yeah. Because if we broke up GM into its constituent brands, it would magically be run by less corrupt people. I doubt it. They'd all still have the same general interests as when it was one conglomerate, there'd just be more of them. All of them willing to contribute the max to politicians of roughly similar ideologies. I'm also pretty sure that regardless of how you structure your "super-progressive" tax, that wealthy people and corporations across the whole country would immediately restructure so as to skirt the burdens of your scheme. I can actually think of a way to avoid a lot of your tax scheme, and it is only truly worthwhile to do if your scheme existed. In the process, a lot more jobs would go offshore.
On the other hand, kicking corporations out of the political arena immediately means that individuals get to stop competing with themselves. The executives at corporations spend money that isn't theirs for political objectives that benefit themselves (friendly political environments make it easier to reach performance goals and the bonuses for same). The money they spend comes from equity holders, debt holders, employees, and customers. These people, in order to further political objectives they actually care about, must then spend more of their own funds. Eliminate corporate involvement and they no longer need to fight against their own money to get the government they desire. If the corporate executives want that friendly environment for the business, pony up their own cash to make it happen. It won't be any more right. But it does have the advantage of being less wrong than what we've got.
Note, I also believe that corporations should not be taxed, at all. Since corporations aren't people and pass things like taxes along to actual people, taxing corporations hides a portion of tax burden from those who should have a say about it. So I am willing to release corporations from the responsibilities of being people while stripping them of the privileges.
Police officers most certainly are not trapped in the system. A) they volunteered to enter the occupation. There is no draft, or risk of one. B) If police officers really shared the thought process, why are none of them telling their superiors that they will not, in fact, uphold useless laws (and then go on to not uphold them). If they don't think it is worth taking a bullet for, but risk taking a bullet for it anyway, they don't get credit from me for their belief.
I don't blame them for compliance, given that their careers and pay are probably on the line. But they don't get to get paid for upholding wasteful law and bank credit for the principles against that same wasteful law.
You were doing okay until you went to "brainwashed by repetitive stretches and drills"..
Because you weren't. You were physically conditioned by them, but brainwashed not so much.
Your coach wasn't telling you that some of you stretchers were good, some of you were bad, and little Timmy in the back is the anti-Pele because he can't half-volley from 18. Soccer practice teaches you about, surprisingly, soccer. If you learn something about yourself, interacting with other people, or how to foul while the ref isn't looking then great. But it wasn't the intent of soccer practice. Might have been the intent of your parents in making you go but not the intent of the drills. Religion, by contrast, teaches you about behavior. Not just in church (or temple, mosque, synagogue, sylvan clearing, laboratory) but every day you live, everywhere you go.
Well, if you'd read the comment you were replying to, you'd notice I said it was "closer to" a billion dollars of profit. Which is already allowing for a quarter billion (yeah.. 250 million) of legal fees. So no, not 1.25 billion dollars of pure profit. Perhaps not even an even billion. But since they don't need to consume materials, qc, market, ship, warehouse, or otherwise mess with products or services.. yeah.. its a lot closer to pure profit than anything short of net income. I'm not even contesting that they've lost more than that figure in sales over the past decade. So fucking what? AMD isn't concerned with their revenues, except that they're the first step in generating profits. Reduce those billions of dollars of estimated revenues by the expenses AMD would have incurred in earning them. That is the figure to be concerned with. It isn't one I can calculate with the information I have.
You might assume that the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish the suit and reap a much larger settlement. All you'd have to do is keep paying the expensive lawyers in the mean time. Oh yeah, and wait on the legal system. In the mean time, they don't get any money. Money later isn't the same as money now. If you think it is, I'll happily let you give me every cent you can scrounge up now and pay you back the whole amount next year. Not to mention that if they take money now, they can use it to design newer, better hardware now and start working on increasing that marketshare you said was so valuable. Waiting years to finish a legal battle means postponing the use of those funds to grow their marketshare even further.
So I'll assume that the people who actually are going to receive the billion+ dollars, who know what their profit margins really are, and are aware of the costs of delay and uncertainty really did weigh the risks versus the rewards and figured this is at least as good as they can expect. Because I'm pretty sure that any company that can make a credible claim on their lawsuit for that many figures has a few coins left to continue fighting.
Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire. No materials costs, no QC costs. No manufacturing losses. Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost? They're only a way to secure profits. This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.
A shame you are on slashdot and don't understand boolean logic. Mac must be true AND Intel processor must be true in order to pass the requirement posted by Apple.
The fact that half of the requirement can be met by many systems is entirely moot.
Do you expect software that states it requires 1gb of ram to function just because some old system has 512mb and therefore has half the requirement? Pretty sure you wouldn't.
Yeah.. speaking to the life expectancy rating means he is also speaking to the infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rates. Obviously they all are equally affected by the same circumstances!
Or maybe its because US doctors are more likely to attempt risky procedures. Where other countries are more willing to not interfere and count the death as a miscarriage. That couldn't possibly skew the numbers at all. Or it may just be that other countries don't count a live birth when the child is below some set birth weight. Or.. if the child dies within 24 hours, it is a miscarriage. Not a live birth. Certainly, all of those differences are trivial. Oh wait..
Ah, yes.. the clicks of laptop keyboard keys and the faint sounds that escape from bad headphones.. these are the sounds that give you issues on an aircraft in flight?
And here I am, not concerned about such things because the constant engine noise and hiss from the air vents are the most constant and loud noises. I'm also okay with that, since the lack of that noise is not good news.
Maybe you just need some earplugs while you're reading your book.
Actually, it isn't the entire point. The SUV uses half as much as the pet, when making certain assumptions about the expenditures on the pet, which is on until it isn't, and certain assumptions about the usage of the SUV.
If eliminating pets causes an increase in TV, SUV, or other activities (and the resources consumed), then the numbers in the article are no longer valid. Even for satirical purposes.
Don't want your Android phone's data in the cloud? No problem. The gmail account that ties to your phone need not have any personal information in it. Don't want your phone's contacts to sync to the Google account? Turn off contact syncing. Its that simple.
Don't want Google Latitude to function with your phone? It'll ask when Google wants to know your location. Tell it to fuck off forever more. It does.
I know.. what an invasion of privacy. Those bastards. If this is the sort of behavior that you believe is an invasion, then you'll definitely want to not pick up any cellular phone of any make, from any provider.
Interesting.. A quote about economists from a guy who didn't know dick about the economy. Implicitly equating economists with libertarians. And then implying that physics isn't real life. Very curious.
No.. You'd set your watch once and never need to adjust it, unless it gains or loses time. Which you have to do anyway. What you'd need to adjust for traveling elsewhere would be yourself. Most people seem to have more trouble with that than correcting their watches.
If we're all using UTC, when you fly from east coast US to west coast US, your watch and the airport clocks on the west coast will still be displaying the same time. Just that everybody on the west coast would be thinking of the day starting sometime around 1500 hours rather than the east coast's 1200.
WTF are you talking about? Android stores contacts locally. The email client does, too. The specialized gmail client may not, but you can always pull your gmail account via the generic email client.
I know its asking a lot to bother reading the summary, let alone non-/. information on the device.. but no. You don't need nasty solvents and sputter coating with this particular model.
I guess we should just pack up all of civilization now. No one who has never had sex can ever give informed consent to an act of sex. They've never had it. It does not matter how many times you've talked to people who have. It does not matter how many classes you've attended. Doesn't matter how many pornos you've watched. Experience is the only way to be able to acquire the information you need in order to be able to make an informed decision.
We allow "informed consent" to stand in a lot of situations where the consent isn't at all informed. This isn't any different. You can't ever be prepared to have sex with someone by never having sex. You can be not completely clueless, sure. You can make rational decisions. It just won't be informed consent in the way you define it.
Actually.. the rewards are very bad. Or, at least, that one is.
Humankind may benefit in that way, but the individuals in the exploratory vehicles aren't likely to reap it. Especially if they die in the process of exploring.
I'm guessing you're American, or at least a legal resident alien, since you're saying "we paid"
But from your post, I'm also going to guess that you went to private primary, secondary, and higher education schools. Either that or you graciously provide your services to society for no additional cost.
Otherwise, we paid for 90+% of your education and you're churlishly demanding payment for a job that you got because of your education.
IMO, the protection of the rights of corporations is little more than protection of the right of individuals when they want to accomplish something larger than they can do by themselves. If you and I wanted to start a nerdrage business on the internet (nevermind the lack of a serious way to make profits), we should be able to do so and retain the rights that we do as individuals. The fact that you and I are cooperating on the matter does not detract from the fact that we still have those rights.
Agreed, individuals have rights. Doesn't mean corporations should have them. Even when individuals permit a corporation to exercise some of their rights so as to simplify the concentration of capital, the corporation does not need to have any rights.
Stripping them of the rights they have collected would have many consequences, intended and not, I'm sure. And I'm not wholly opposed to having an explicit list of corporate rights AND responsibilities. But they definitely should not have the rights of individuals. They are not, and can never be, an individual. They don't give birth. They spin off. They don't die. They dissolve. They can't be incarcerated without putting everyone on payroll on a pseudo house arrest, regardless of their ability to affect corporate behavior. They can't even be fined in a way that is meaningful. It becomes a cost of doing business. How many individuals consider fines a cost of living?
I'd be interested to see the logical outcomes of such a decision.. for instance.. if my software is licensed to me, then the company owes me whatever is necessary to make the software operate, such as new discs. Even if we're talking years after the.. er initial transaction occurs. That, or they owe me my money back.
Of course, I don't actually believe that logical outcomes have a prayer of occuring, as we're talking legal outcomes.
Actually.. you could, in totally legit fashion, tally the "lost" (never earned) income as a cost to society of smoking. But, if you were to make such an inclusion, you'd also need to include the total costs of healthcare not incurred because of the early death. I'm pretty sure that number would be much larger than the lost income, which would still make your point valid. Being old is costly. Being dead, less so.
Of course.. those sorts of numbers mean that "cost taxes" are being imposed in the wrong areas, to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.
1) The security of financial transactions isn't "clearly the customer's responsibility".. it is a problem that exists because there are two parties. The bank is one. The customer is the other. Both can take steps to reduce losses. Customers can secure their fucking computers. Banks can secure the fucking web page. Neither party will capture all of the gains from improving security. So, to answer your question.. banks should be held responsible (for some, perhaps most, but not all) of this type of security because they are in the best position to improve everybody's position at the least expenditure of effort. Making them responsible makes sure they make such an effort.
2) It won't. Users are dumb, reckless, careless, negligent, and stubborn. How many hours of a poorly performing machine must they suffer before they're willing to tighten security? Many, many years, apparently. How much data must users lose before they'll tighten security? Couldn't tell you. I can pretty much guarantee you that a tiny fraction of the population of internet banking users getting ripped off won't make the rest of the vast hordes of users give a flip about their own machine's security if years of data loss, identity theft, and performance impact have yet to do the job.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably say "thanks" and update your insurance claim. Since they have less wiggle room to not pay. The car is wrecked, now. Not stolen and potentially recoverable.
Are you BadAnalogyGuy in disguise or something?
No, not preferable to whom. Preferable under which conditions. If the choice is between becoming a martyr or capture and trial by western law, which do you suppose is preferable?
Very few people who have actual goals desire becoming a martyr. Its sort of a least worst alternative status.
capcha.. confine. /. made a funny.
I said your tax scheme could be gamed. Which it can. Just like the tax laws we have today are gamed by people and corporation. Or aren't you aware of trusts, incorporation in select localities, and any number of other procedures which are already in place and legal?
Let us imagine that taxes are super progressive and asymptotic to 100% taxation like you suggest. Unless you reach your absurdly high levels of taxation at absurdly high (read: useless) levels of profit, shifting the bulk of operations out of US jurisdiction immediately and pretty much totally avoids an enormous tax burden. The corporation need only leave behind a retail arm that is, essentially, a non-profit organization. Its aims are only to cover the costs of distribution. The foreign company makes all the profits on its near-retail price sale of goods to the domestic distributor. The domestic distributor has a small markup to cover the costs of domestic transport, retail salespeople, building upkeep, and reports no profits. Or practically no profits. The corporation doesn't care that its earning its profits in Switzerland or Brazil or where the hell ever else is a better taxing jurisdiction. Similar behavior for individuals exist. Some of which is less legal. But if your overseas bank doesn't send the IRS an INT-1099, the IRS doesn't collect or know about your foreign income, even though you are obligated by US law to report it. Or wealthy people may elect to move their citizenship to other, more reasonable, countries. What will the US do? Tell them they can't travel to the states and spend their absurd amounts of money as tourists or resident aliens? Right.. Or they will divide their assets into multiple privately held corporations, trusts, or other asset containers. They'll work it so their reportable income is low, without sacrificing much (if any) of their lifestyle.
But I'm glad you "think the courts are more competent than that" and that the ability to restructure debt and income is the only problem with your ideas.
I doubt your suggestions would hold much hope for improvement. Limiting influence is decidedly difficult. After all, are we going to start legislating who may be friends with whom? No? Then the politically connected will have an overwhelmingly greater influence than those that are not (which is .. most of us). Limit the size of corporations? Ah, yeah. Because if we broke up GM into its constituent brands, it would magically be run by less corrupt people. I doubt it. They'd all still have the same general interests as when it was one conglomerate, there'd just be more of them. All of them willing to contribute the max to politicians of roughly similar ideologies. I'm also pretty sure that regardless of how you structure your "super-progressive" tax, that wealthy people and corporations across the whole country would immediately restructure so as to skirt the burdens of your scheme. I can actually think of a way to avoid a lot of your tax scheme, and it is only truly worthwhile to do if your scheme existed. In the process, a lot more jobs would go offshore.
On the other hand, kicking corporations out of the political arena immediately means that individuals get to stop competing with themselves. The executives at corporations spend money that isn't theirs for political objectives that benefit themselves (friendly political environments make it easier to reach performance goals and the bonuses for same). The money they spend comes from equity holders, debt holders, employees, and customers. These people, in order to further political objectives they actually care about, must then spend more of their own funds. Eliminate corporate involvement and they no longer need to fight against their own money to get the government they desire. If the corporate executives want that friendly environment for the business, pony up their own cash to make it happen. It won't be any more right. But it does have the advantage of being less wrong than what we've got.
Note, I also believe that corporations should not be taxed, at all. Since corporations aren't people and pass things like taxes along to actual people, taxing corporations hides a portion of tax burden from those who should have a say about it. So I am willing to release corporations from the responsibilities of being people while stripping them of the privileges.
Police officers most certainly are not trapped in the system. A) they volunteered to enter the occupation. There is no draft, or risk of one. B) If police officers really shared the thought process, why are none of them telling their superiors that they will not, in fact, uphold useless laws (and then go on to not uphold them). If they don't think it is worth taking a bullet for, but risk taking a bullet for it anyway, they don't get credit from me for their belief.
I don't blame them for compliance, given that their careers and pay are probably on the line. But they don't get to get paid for upholding wasteful law and bank credit for the principles against that same wasteful law.
You were doing okay until you went to "brainwashed by repetitive stretches and drills" ..
Because you weren't. You were physically conditioned by them, but brainwashed not so much.
Your coach wasn't telling you that some of you stretchers were good, some of you were bad, and little Timmy in the back is the anti-Pele because he can't half-volley from 18.
Soccer practice teaches you about, surprisingly, soccer. If you learn something about yourself, interacting with other people, or how to foul while the ref isn't looking then great. But it wasn't the intent of soccer practice. Might have been the intent of your parents in making you go but not the intent of the drills. Religion, by contrast, teaches you about behavior. Not just in church (or temple, mosque, synagogue, sylvan clearing, laboratory) but every day you live, everywhere you go.
Well, if you'd read the comment you were replying to, you'd notice I said it was "closer to" a billion dollars of profit. Which is already allowing for a quarter billion (yeah.. 250 million) of legal fees. So no, not 1.25 billion dollars of pure profit. Perhaps not even an even billion. But since they don't need to consume materials, qc, market, ship, warehouse, or otherwise mess with products or services.. yeah.. its a lot closer to pure profit than anything short of net income. I'm not even contesting that they've lost more than that figure in sales over the past decade. So fucking what? AMD isn't concerned with their revenues, except that they're the first step in generating profits. Reduce those billions of dollars of estimated revenues by the expenses AMD would have incurred in earning them. That is the figure to be concerned with. It isn't one I can calculate with the information I have.
You might assume that the risk/reward factor would say the smart move would be to finish the suit and reap a much larger settlement. All you'd have to do is keep paying the expensive lawyers in the mean time. Oh yeah, and wait on the legal system. In the mean time, they don't get any money. Money later isn't the same as money now. If you think it is, I'll happily let you give me every cent you can scrounge up now and pay you back the whole amount next year. Not to mention that if they take money now, they can use it to design newer, better hardware now and start working on increasing that marketshare you said was so valuable. Waiting years to finish a legal battle means postponing the use of those funds to grow their marketshare even further.
So I'll assume that the people who actually are going to receive the billion+ dollars, who know what their profit margins really are, and are aware of the costs of delay and uncertainty really did weigh the risks versus the rewards and figured this is at least as good as they can expect. Because I'm pretty sure that any company that can make a credible claim on their lawsuit for that many figures has a few coins left to continue fighting.
Except that this is 1.25 billion dollars that AMD need make no sale to acquire. No materials costs, no QC costs. No manufacturing losses. Why should AMD (or anyone else) be concerned with revenues lost? They're only a way to secure profits. This is much closer to a billion dollars of profits, which is far more valuable than a billion dollars of revenue.
A shame you are on slashdot and don't understand boolean logic. Mac must be true AND Intel processor must be true in order to pass the requirement posted by Apple.
The fact that half of the requirement can be met by many systems is entirely moot.
Do you expect software that states it requires 1gb of ram to function just because some old system has 512mb and therefore has half the requirement? Pretty sure you wouldn't.
Yeah.. speaking to the life expectancy rating means he is also speaking to the infant mortality rate and maternal mortality rates. Obviously they all are equally affected by the same circumstances!
Or maybe its because US doctors are more likely to attempt risky procedures. Where other countries are more willing to not interfere and count the death as a miscarriage. That couldn't possibly skew the numbers at all. Or it may just be that other countries don't count a live birth when the child is below some set birth weight. Or .. if the child dies within 24 hours, it is a miscarriage. Not a live birth. Certainly, all of those differences are trivial. Oh wait..
Ah, yes.. the clicks of laptop keyboard keys and the faint sounds that escape from bad headphones.. these are the sounds that give you issues on an aircraft in flight?
And here I am, not concerned about such things because the constant engine noise and hiss from the air vents are the most constant and loud noises. I'm also okay with that, since the lack of that noise is not good news.
Maybe you just need some earplugs while you're reading your book.
Actually, it isn't the entire point. The SUV uses half as much as the pet, when making certain assumptions about the expenditures on the pet, which is on until it isn't, and certain assumptions about the usage of the SUV.
If eliminating pets causes an increase in TV, SUV, or other activities (and the resources consumed), then the numbers in the article are no longer valid. Even for satirical purposes.
You.. are clueless.
Don't want your Android phone's data in the cloud? No problem. The gmail account that ties to your phone need not have any personal information in it. Don't want your phone's contacts to sync to the Google account? Turn off contact syncing. Its that simple.
Don't want Google Latitude to function with your phone? It'll ask when Google wants to know your location. Tell it to fuck off forever more. It does.
I know.. what an invasion of privacy. Those bastards. If this is the sort of behavior that you believe is an invasion, then you'll definitely want to not pick up any cellular phone of any make, from any provider.
Interesting.. A quote about economists from a guy who didn't know dick about the economy. Implicitly equating economists with libertarians. And then implying that physics isn't real life. Very curious.
No.. You'd set your watch once and never need to adjust it, unless it gains or loses time. Which you have to do anyway. What you'd need to adjust for traveling elsewhere would be yourself. Most people seem to have more trouble with that than correcting their watches.
If we're all using UTC, when you fly from east coast US to west coast US, your watch and the airport clocks on the west coast will still be displaying the same time. Just that everybody on the west coast would be thinking of the day starting sometime around 1500 hours rather than the east coast's 1200.
WTF are you talking about? Android stores contacts locally. The email client does, too. The specialized gmail client may not, but you can always pull your gmail account via the generic email client.
I know its asking a lot to bother reading the summary, let alone non-/. information on the device.. but no. You don't need nasty solvents and sputter coating with this particular model.
I guess we should just pack up all of civilization now. No one who has never had sex can ever give informed consent to an act of sex. They've never had it. It does not matter how many times you've talked to people who have. It does not matter how many classes you've attended. Doesn't matter how many pornos you've watched. Experience is the only way to be able to acquire the information you need in order to be able to make an informed decision.
We allow "informed consent" to stand in a lot of situations where the consent isn't at all informed. This isn't any different. You can't ever be prepared to have sex with someone by never having sex. You can be not completely clueless, sure. You can make rational decisions. It just won't be informed consent in the way you define it.
I think you should perhaps go back and read the summary carefully.
You're the first one to mention open source. Unless you think the story submitter spells source in a really eccentric fashion.
Actually.. the rewards are very bad. Or, at least, that one is.
Humankind may benefit in that way, but the individuals in the exploratory vehicles aren't likely to reap it. Especially if they die in the process of exploring.
I'm guessing you're American, or at least a legal resident alien, since you're saying "we paid"
But from your post, I'm also going to guess that you went to private primary, secondary, and higher education schools. Either that or you graciously provide your services to society for no additional cost.
Otherwise, we paid for 90+% of your education and you're churlishly demanding payment for a job that you got because of your education.
Agreed, individuals have rights. Doesn't mean corporations should have them. Even when individuals permit a corporation to exercise some of their rights so as to simplify the concentration of capital, the corporation does not need to have any rights.
Stripping them of the rights they have collected would have many consequences, intended and not, I'm sure. And I'm not wholly opposed to having an explicit list of corporate rights AND responsibilities. But they definitely should not have the rights of individuals. They are not, and can never be, an individual. They don't give birth. They spin off. They don't die. They dissolve. They can't be incarcerated without putting everyone on payroll on a pseudo house arrest, regardless of their ability to affect corporate behavior. They can't even be fined in a way that is meaningful. It becomes a cost of doing business. How many individuals consider fines a cost of living?
I'd be interested to see the logical outcomes of such a decision.. for instance.. if my software is licensed to me, then the company owes me whatever is necessary to make the software operate, such as new discs. Even if we're talking years after the .. er initial transaction occurs. That, or they owe me my money back.
Of course, I don't actually believe that logical outcomes have a prayer of occuring, as we're talking legal outcomes.
Actually.. you could, in totally legit fashion, tally the "lost" (never earned) income as a cost to society of smoking. But, if you were to make such an inclusion, you'd also need to include the total costs of healthcare not incurred because of the early death. I'm pretty sure that number would be much larger than the lost income, which would still make your point valid. Being old is costly. Being dead, less so.
Of course.. those sorts of numbers mean that "cost taxes" are being imposed in the wrong areas, to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons.
1) The security of financial transactions isn't "clearly the customer's responsibility" .. it is a problem that exists because there are two parties. The bank is one. The customer is the other. Both can take steps to reduce losses. Customers can secure their fucking computers. Banks can secure the fucking web page. Neither party will capture all of the gains from improving security. So, to answer your question.. banks should be held responsible (for some, perhaps most, but not all) of this type of security because they are in the best position to improve everybody's position at the least expenditure of effort. Making them responsible makes sure they make such an effort.
2) It won't. Users are dumb, reckless, careless, negligent, and stubborn. How many hours of a poorly performing machine must they suffer before they're willing to tighten security? Many, many years, apparently. How much data must users lose before they'll tighten security? Couldn't tell you. I can pretty much guarantee you that a tiny fraction of the population of internet banking users getting ripped off won't make the rest of the vast hordes of users give a flip about their own machine's security if years of data loss, identity theft, and performance impact have yet to do the job.