They have never stopped anything. Everything gets by them and has been stopped on the plane or failed on the plane. They only exist to get you used to "showing your papers" and getting searched.
They stop people from making their flights on time...
o while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....
Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking, and even if she does look you are coming so fast that unless she's paying real attention (and she isn't: see premise) she won't realize it.
I've been up to 100mph and well beyond in my 911, and yeah, it handles like its on rails. But even so, the highway is not a track. There can be debris on the road, and the other drivers aren't speed matched at all.
The few times I've wound it out on a highway, I'm off the gas pedal again if I see another car on the horizon -- because you overtake them so fast, and you can't do a sudden lane change or effectively hit the brakes at that when Sally the realtor wanders out of her lane for any reason.
I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.
On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.
To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad. 100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok, done that on the track a few times, and agree its pretty reasonable, where everyone's doing it, everyone's paying attention, etc.
But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.
As for this guys stunt... its hard to say... if he was doing 60-70 when there were cars in sight, and 150mph when it was wide open than sure, he might haverage 100mph and its not as crazy as you' think. But if he was doing 100mph+ while overtaking people doing 55-60... he doesn't deserve to hold a license.
Frankly you're a bit of a pussy with speed from what you write. 100Mph is nothing on a well-built highway in a modern good quality car.
In Germany there are many highways without speed limits and if you're only driving 100Mph you're going to get passed all the time.
Speeding fines are there to collect some money for municipalities.
Otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.
Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.
Um...yes, they are there to collect money. And that money is multiplied if you happen to be foreign or, as in my case, driving on a foreign driver's license.
As an American now driving on a French driver's license I was stopped in NH for what should have been speeding and instead was arrested for reckless driving. I was driving calmly (i.e. not weaving through traffic or anything) at less than 100Mph on the highway in the daytime with clear, dry weather with almost no traffic on the road. Speeding? Yes. Reckless driving? - Only because I was on a French license.
The cop was chuckling when he busted me saying things like 'Oh we have a judge that loves foreigners' blah blah. Idiot cop that couldn't tell that I'm American from my passport but whatever.
After posting 500 USD bail to avoid spending the weekend in the lockup (this was a Friday evening), and taking my flight back home to France, I faxed a request to the court to not contest in return for not having to for over maybe another 1000 USD for airplane tickets, car rental, hotel, etc that would be required to be able to return for the scheduled court date.
The fucking judge didn't force me to come back but did hit me for a total of 900 USD for what should have been, according to the NH state website, a fine of less than 100 USD.
It's not so much that it's an outlier or unlikely, it's that given our current understanding of planets/orbits/forces, it shouldn't be there at all. ie: There should be 0 planets like it in the universe. It would be like finding a neptune-like planet orbiting a sun-like star at 0.5 AUs, due to the solar wind at that distance, it should only be a 'rocky' planet, not a gas planet. The 'problem' with this planet is that it is too close to the star for it to have formed there, and there is no stable orbital migration pattern which would allow it to have formed farther out and drifted inward as close as it has w/o almost immediately falling into the star itself.
Two possibilities: either the data is wrong or the theory is wrong.
Side note - It does not seem completely impossible, only extremely improbable, that a large meteor might fall close to the sun and end up being captured by it's gravity well and end up in a stable (or close to) orbit.
Disclaimer: I freely admit that I have no idea what I am talking about.
There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.
Maybe the question isn't whether or not to use glass (or similar) but what information should be displayed.
Arguably things that you would otherwise have to look elsewhere for (ie radio, gps, whatever) would be just as well or better on the glass.
Well, there is a solution to this. Apple maps is used on a device with gps tracking, so when you are physically located in mainland China you can say that Taiwan is a province of China, and when you are in Taiwan you say that it's a separate nation. Problem solved, everyone happy except fishermen using the app. But get a real waterproof gps if you are on a boat.
Google and China are on "Fuck You" terms so I don't see why Google would bother making China happy.
35M is enough that someone internal is going to pay the price -- and by price, I mean leave his executive position and go to work for another tech company in high management for a similar paycheck where he'll repeat the process.
That depends on whether Infosys made a significant profit by this maneuver even taking the 35M into account.
If they made 500M (bullshit number just for example) in profits this way overall and had to pay 35M in penalties they'd say 'well done we came out ahead'.
I don't know what the fuck this article or the summary are on about.
Amazon is profitable. They (and many other multinationals) claim not to have profits on their ginormous revenues by shifting those profits offshore to avoid paying tax in their core market countries.
If you prefer to optimize for happiness, there are lots of drugs to help you with that.
Unfortunately, optimizing for happiness has serious disadvantages even in modern society. Preferentially learning from painful experiences has its benefits even today.
I find, I believe largely due to the way our lives have gone so far, that I am a worrier and my partner is a happy, happy non-worrier. It can be really fucking annoying when I'm focused on serious things and she starts talking about cookies or some shit but overall I guess it balances out - helps me stop focusing only on bad things. Presumably better for the kids too, to have a balance.
". But it also raises the question of whether targeting anonymity services to hunt out fraudsters could have chilling effects for harmless Tor users trying to protect their privacy online—particularly this year in light of the NSA-spying scandal."
Seriously?
Why would you ever need to "protect your privacy" via Tor etc, from an ONLINE SHOPPING SITE that you are GIVING YOUR CREDIT CARD AND SHIPPING INFORMATION TO?
I mean, I'm as much anti NSA crap as the next guy. but come on. That said, cool tech. It would make sense that retailers would do this. I see this is a good thing, not a reason to slam the lizards running our government.
Today it's the credit card transactions, then it's the cash transactions, then it's the bitcoin transactions. It's a step against privacy regardless.
So... it's going to see my address is Florida but I'm making an online purchase from Toronto? And disallow it?
That's probably the last time I'd do business with that company.
There are services (Netflix comes to mind) that just plain don't allow streaming/downloading/purchasing outside the US or charge a whole lot more depending on where you're buying from. Buying a game online in the EU can cost twice as much as buying the same thing online in the US.
Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).
No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.
It was precisely that.
It was too much capitalism in the overbalance of bank greed and too little government in the lack of regulation to control it.
Seriously? The US is in the middle of seriously pissing off all its allies, and your response is simply "We don't care! We'll do what we want and you can't stop us!"
And people use to wonder why the Middle Eastern countries hated America. This is Europe getting some of the same treatment.
Now that the TFTP data sharing agreement is suspended, and SWIFT no longer need their US datacenter, the only way back in is hacking. And I'm sure the people at SWIFT know that, and will do their best to stop it.
Anyway, this is a very good thing. Next up - airline passenger data!
That $460 million came out of Knight Capital's pockets too...and is far more effective than any fine the SEC could levy. Why should the SEC pile on, aside from the populist outrage that goes along with people handling billions of dollars?
As a punishment, obviously.
If you break a law, and the action of breaking the law costs you money, you would still be penalized for breaking the law.
i.e. if you spend five million dollars on trying to have someone killed and the assassin takes off with your cash you could still be held accountable for conspiracy to commit murder (IANAL but whatever) along with whatever punishment that merits.
Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?
For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again? Individuals that paid thousands of dollars simply got a small payment while banks just had to deal with "the cost of doing business."
I think I know the answer (lobbying/congresscritters in their pockets) but I think it's one of the most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008.
Conceptually it's more like they have the (bankrupt) government as a whole in their pocket.
Got enough money to buy off a (bankrupt) government and you can get away with an awful lot.
Slashdot Mirror
Name one thing the TSA has stopped. One.
Give up?
They have never stopped anything. Everything gets by them and has been stopped on the plane or failed on the plane. They only exist to get you used to "showing your papers" and getting searched.
They stop people from making their flights on time...
It's not mutually exclusive.
"..as a righteous whistleblower rather than a traitor to the U.S. government."
'The government' is not the same thing as 'the country'.
Snowden is..
...a righteous whistleblower.
...a traitor to the U.S. government.
...not a traitor to the US and its people.
1) there is no such thing as a "lie detector". Polygraphs are voodoo.
2) NEVER talk to the police.
HTH,
-jcr
Have a look -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVVNuraly8
Fair enough - I stand corrected -
o while he was "breaking the law" I doubt he was as wreckless as Sally the realtor hurtling along in her Infinity SUV on her cell phone, explaining stuff to clients, and looking up things on her laptop....
Driving 100 to 150mp while anywhere within sight of Sally the oblivious realtor is itself reckless. Think about it, she's not paying attention, likely to change langes without looking, and even if she does look you are coming so fast that unless she's paying real attention (and she isn't: see premise) she won't realize it.
I've been up to 100mph and well beyond in my 911, and yeah, it handles like its on rails. But even so, the highway is not a track. There can be debris on the road, and the other drivers aren't speed matched at all.
The few times I've wound it out on a highway, I'm off the gas pedal again if I see another car on the horizon -- because you overtake them so fast, and you can't do a sudden lane change or effectively hit the brakes at that when Sally the realtor wanders out of her lane for any reason.
I've ridden on interstate trips and averaged 90-100 on the bike including quick fuel stops... and felt perfectly safe.
On a bike? That's even nuttier as you won't likely survive the wreck when Sally the realtor does what Sally the realtor is going to do.
To sum up 100-150mph on an empty highway ... sure ok. Been there done that, agree its not that bad. 100mph+ where the other cars are speed matched... sure ok, done that on the track a few times, and agree its pretty reasonable, where everyone's doing it, everyone's paying attention, etc.
But overtaking people who are semi-conscious doing half the speed, and barely paying attention... no... that's going to be reckless.
As for this guys stunt... its hard to say... if he was doing 60-70 when there were cars in sight, and 150mph when it was wide open than sure, he might haverage 100mph and its not as crazy as you' think. But if he was doing 100mph+ while overtaking people doing 55-60... he doesn't deserve to hold a license.
Frankly you're a bit of a pussy with speed from what you write. 100Mph is nothing on a well-built highway in a modern good quality car.
In Germany there are many highways without speed limits and if you're only driving 100Mph you're going to get passed all the time.
Cars from 1967 are nowhere near as safe as cars built today.
Speeding fines are there to collect some money for municipalities.
Otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.
Um... no. Speeding fines are NOT there to collect some money for municipalities, otherwise they would be uniformly and much more strictly enforced.
Um...yes, they are there to collect money. And that money is multiplied if you happen to be foreign or, as in my case, driving on a foreign driver's license.
As an American now driving on a French driver's license I was stopped in NH for what should have been speeding and instead was arrested for reckless driving. I was driving calmly (i.e. not weaving through traffic or anything) at less than 100Mph on the highway in the daytime with clear, dry weather with almost no traffic on the road. Speeding? Yes. Reckless driving? - Only because I was on a French license.
The cop was chuckling when he busted me saying things like 'Oh we have a judge that loves foreigners' blah blah. Idiot cop that couldn't tell that I'm American from my passport but whatever.
After posting 500 USD bail to avoid spending the weekend in the lockup (this was a Friday evening), and taking my flight back home to France, I faxed a request to the court to not contest in return for not having to for over maybe another 1000 USD for airplane tickets, car rental, hotel, etc that would be required to be able to return for the scheduled court date.
The fucking judge didn't force me to come back but did hit me for a total of 900 USD for what should have been, according to the NH state website, a fine of less than 100 USD.
It doesn't matter what the stockholders voted as their votes don't count.
It's like the French voting for American presidents.
Hellish hot and spinning around for 8.5 hours, while it shouldn't be there at all...
Who's got a telescope pointed at my boss?
I didn't know you worked for my girlfriend...
It's not so much that it's an outlier or unlikely, it's that given our current understanding of planets/orbits/forces, it shouldn't be there at all. ie: There should be 0 planets like it in the universe. It would be like finding a neptune-like planet orbiting a sun-like star at 0.5 AUs, due to the solar wind at that distance, it should only be a 'rocky' planet, not a gas planet. The 'problem' with this planet is that it is too close to the star for it to have formed there, and there is no stable orbital migration pattern which would allow it to have formed farther out and drifted inward as close as it has w/o almost immediately falling into the star itself.
Two possibilities: either the data is wrong or the theory is wrong.
Side note - It does not seem completely impossible, only extremely improbable, that a large meteor might fall close to the sun and end up being captured by it's gravity well and end up in a stable (or close to) orbit.
Disclaimer: I freely admit that I have no idea what I am talking about.
Whoever actually wears that in public gets a geek license for life.
There are far fewer things to hit at an aircraft's usual altitude. A pilot's HUD can obscure small parts of the view without significant risk. There's also the small detail that pilots are far better-trained than most drivers.
Maybe the question isn't whether or not to use glass (or similar) but what information should be displayed.
Arguably things that you would otherwise have to look elsewhere for (ie radio, gps, whatever) would be just as well or better on the glass.
Maybe she uses it for GPS? How do you know she uses it for something that takes her attention away from driving?
How about the fact that a cop was tailing her for a while and she didn't even notice him?
Yeah but was the cop car marked or unmarked?
Well, there is a solution to this. Apple maps is used on a device with gps tracking, so when you are physically located in mainland China you can say that Taiwan is a province of China, and when you are in Taiwan you say that it's a separate nation. Problem solved, everyone happy except fishermen using the app. But get a real waterproof gps if you are on a boat.
Google and China are on "Fuck You" terms so I don't see why Google would bother making China happy.
35M is enough that someone internal is going to pay the price -- and by price, I mean leave his executive position and go to work for another tech company in high management for a similar paycheck where he'll repeat the process.
That depends on whether Infosys made a significant profit by this maneuver even taking the 35M into account.
If they made 500M (bullshit number just for example) in profits this way overall and had to pay 35M in penalties they'd say 'well done we came out ahead'.
I don't know what the fuck this article or the summary are on about.
Amazon is profitable. They (and many other multinationals) claim not to have profits on their ginormous revenues by shifting those profits offshore to avoid paying tax in their core market countries.
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jul/19/oecd-tax-reform-proposals-amazon
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/22/us-eu-tax-avoidance-idUSBRE94L0GW20130522
If you prefer to optimize for happiness, there are lots of drugs to help you with that.
Unfortunately, optimizing for happiness has serious disadvantages even in modern society. Preferentially learning from painful experiences has its benefits even today.
I find, I believe largely due to the way our lives have gone so far, that I am a worrier and my partner is a happy, happy non-worrier. It can be really fucking annoying when I'm focused on serious things and she starts talking about cookies or some shit but overall I guess it balances out - helps me stop focusing only on bad things. Presumably better for the kids too, to have a balance.
That's why you want to save meals and sex for when you've been good.
I assume you're talking about the giving of rather than the receiving of :-)
". But it also raises the question of whether targeting anonymity services to hunt out fraudsters could have chilling effects for harmless Tor users trying to protect their privacy online—particularly this year in light of the NSA-spying scandal."
Seriously?
Why would you ever need to "protect your privacy" via Tor etc, from an ONLINE SHOPPING SITE that you are GIVING YOUR CREDIT CARD AND SHIPPING INFORMATION TO?
I mean, I'm as much anti NSA crap as the next guy. but come on. That said, cool tech. It would make sense that retailers would do this. I see this is a good thing, not a reason to slam the lizards running our government.
Today it's the credit card transactions, then it's the cash transactions, then it's the bitcoin transactions. It's a step against privacy regardless.
So... it's going to see my address is Florida but I'm making an online purchase from Toronto? And disallow it?
That's probably the last time I'd do business with that company.
There are services (Netflix comes to mind) that just plain don't allow streaming/downloading/purchasing outside the US or charge a whole lot more depending on where you're buying from. Buying a game online in the EU can cost twice as much as buying the same thing online in the US.
Sorry, you can't blame the current economy on too much capitalism. (Or too much robotics, for another favorite dystopian scenario).
No, something else happened circa 2008 to turn a recession into an ongoing malaise. And it sure as heck wasn't too much capitalism or too little government.
It was precisely that.
It was too much capitalism in the overbalance of bank greed and too little government in the lack of regulation to control it.
Seriously? The US is in the middle of seriously pissing off all its allies, and your response is simply "We don't care! We'll do what we want and you can't stop us!"
And people use to wonder why the Middle Eastern countries hated America. This is Europe getting some of the same treatment.
Minus the bombs...
Now that the TFTP data sharing agreement is suspended, and SWIFT no longer need their US datacenter, the only way back in is hacking. And I'm sure the people at SWIFT know that, and will do their best to stop it.
Anyway, this is a very good thing. Next up - airline passenger data!
Yeah it's not like TFTP is very secure...
(ducks)
That $460 million came out of Knight Capital's pockets too...and is far more effective than any fine the SEC could levy. Why should the SEC pile on, aside from the populist outrage that goes along with people handling billions of dollars?
As a punishment, obviously.
If you break a law, and the action of breaking the law costs you money, you would still be penalized for breaking the law.
i.e. if you spend five million dollars on trying to have someone killed and the assassin takes off with your cash you could still be held accountable for conspiracy to commit murder (IANAL but whatever) along with whatever punishment that merits.
Can someone tell me why these financial institutions are never forced to compensate the *individuals* that suffer from these events?
For instance in the mortgage fraud scandal they were allowed to settle fraudulent foreclosures for pennies on the dollar. Why are these companies never required to make the people they hurt whole again? Individuals that paid thousands of dollars simply got a small payment while banks just had to deal with "the cost of doing business."
I think I know the answer (lobbying/congresscritters in their pockets) but I think it's one of the most scandalous aspects of the financial mess of 2008.
Conceptually it's more like they have the (bankrupt) government as a whole in their pocket.
Got enough money to buy off a (bankrupt) government and you can get away with an awful lot.