...all of the members of Pakistan's high court were replaced today, as the previous members all died of, according to the official government report, accidental bullet wounds to the chest and head.
More likely they come back as consultants or part time employees because they're asked to and there's a need that they can fill that you more junior people aren't filling, not because they don't know what to do with themselves.
Cutting people that aren't as profitable is one way to continue doing well by business standards. The longer people on the payroll contributing their lives to make the owners rich, the more they cost - if you don't generate more profit for the company than people in third world countries who are willing to work for 1/10th to 1/300th of what it costs to keep you, why should the greedy bastards keep you on staff when they can cut you and improve their bottom line?
I find it easy enough to image someone who is not an expert in computers going to the wrong web page (ie typo in the bank name www.banksrsu.com instead of www.banksrus.com) and being faced with username, login and ONE code entry...which doesn't work and so the page reloads and they're asked for ANOTHER code entry. Granted most people would give up after trying a few times but nonetheless it's trivial to get a minimum of three or four codes + username and password information.
I have a card from one of my banks where there are eight columns and six rows giving 48 codes which the bad guys now have three or four of. If they are persistent or lucky they might just be able to initiate a wire transfer out of my account (I have no idea if the bank locks the account after several bad code entries but I suspect not as they assume valid username & password).
One time tokens (ie securID) should be required for ALL bank accounts for any and all online transactions.
You are accurate but a one time physical token (ie SecureID) would still be safer for the customer. The bank SHOULD be using these (my bank does) and as they are not then arguably they are to some degree or another responsible.
This TAN code is probably a set of codes on a card that the customer is instructed to input based on [ column, row ], when they want to do something on line. I have something similar here in France. Seems this customer was fooled into putting more than one of them, along with username & password most likely, into the fake web page and the bad guys then were able to use one of them to make the transfer.
I have a business account in Hong Kong that they've provided me a one time token similar to Secure ID for which is going to be a lot more secure unless someone physically got a hold of it, along with my username and password so overall I do agree with you that banks should be using these tokens instead of the matrix cards.
What about 'mining' all the crap we've already put up into space that's floating around our planet as rubbish now? I admit to ignorance but just the same I would guess there's enough there to be able to build a decent space station or lunar base.
Sorry but that strikes me as just more rationalization to be able to take what you want without paying for it. You can give your own music (or anything else) away for free and no one can stop you. You can even sell it and no one can stop you from doing that either.
That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
The article makes very interesting associations without any proof of causation. Just because the people in one area that happens to be primarily republican purportedly gave more than the people in another area which is primarily liberal does not at all indicate whether the people giving are republican or liberal, or rich or poor. Already that they were collecting at Macy's and Wal-Mart breaks the comparison as Macy's is a bit more expensive than Wal-Mart. It's a bullshit report. The entire thought of the rich being more generous is idiotic to start with so I didn't bother reading the second part of the article as it only confirms this and has no bearing on the conservative vs. liberal point you're making. It would have been more interesting to know if the rich who do not give are conservative or liberal but of course that would have gone against the slant of the article against 'liberals' so it wasn't included.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
I want to think you're joking but I suppose that you aren't. How could Jesus, proponent of peace, father of the meek, possibly not care about the propagation of weapons that are only meant to kill? What an amazing thing to say.
Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.).
It's not based on what's written in the constitution. It's based on pockets being filled - contractors and politicians both.
Bush got disdain because he appeared to be a complete idiot not only during times of crisis but more or less every time he opened his mouth. If he increased educational spending it was no doubt on the request of his wife but whatever. America's problems with education are not particularly financial. More money won't change that conservatives / republicans are trying to teach creationism, for example.
As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.
Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.
I don't think that either liberals or republicans particularly want to destroy the country, but I di
"Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it."
Well you're half right anyway. Some or most Republicans (I won't say all but might be) are or are trying to tap the political base of Christians in the US who are often openly against birth control (behind closed doors being another situation altogether of course) as it is against god's command to be fruitful and multiply and in some cases is perceived as being equal to abortion.
Not paying for birth control is just one step in the direction that they want to go which is anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-separation of church and state.
"While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not."
Not yet anyway.
Religion is irrational. Religious fundamentalists are extremely irrational. Anyone irrational enough to kill people to 'save the unborn babies' is potentially eventually insane enough to poison children being taught something against their irrationality.
Not saying it WILL happen just that when you're examining extreme irrationality it is difficult to know what will and will not happen.
"Ask a devout Christian or Jew if that's the case and see what he says."
So you're asking the poster to ask the devout Christian or Jew to define it then, are you not?.
In the end it is accurate to say that religions are defined by their followers as religions have only the power that their followers give to them. No followers, no religion.
Sounds like you haven't actually had kids yet. If so, then you only think you've won. When the time actually comes then you'll be fighting a whole different fight over the same exact issues.
It's part of the business model and as such is a cost that is factored in. The reason that companies have such an easy return policy is for customer satisfaction - to get and keep customers. Look at L.L. Bean for example, who've been in business for a long time.
Whatever - you want to argue about words and you don't talk about the actual topics at all.
Semantics (from Greek smantiká, neuter plural of smantikós)is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
It is semantics. Either discuss the topics or stop wasting my time with meaningless argument over, yes, semantics.
If you have to fall back on semantics to win the argument then there isn't much point is there.
I'll rephrase it for you. The Chinese (and others but at this point more the Chinese than anyone else) feel free to access valuable information, using any methods possible, and copy what they can and profit from it, without any restriction or thoughts of remuneration to those who put the time, effort and whatever other form of investment was necessary to design, create, build, test, verify, refine, etc products and services numerous beyond counting. This might take the form of hacking and breaking into systems or it might take the somewhat less refined method of videotaping what the companies you've invited to come and build you a maglev train as a demo have built (which when they were caught on film doing so actually stated this was their research and development, which in itself says a lot).
This hurts the people who live in the countries where such intangibles are being developed in at least two ways that immediately come to mind: 1) The people who invested time, money, effort, etc. who wanted to make a living from their work now find themselves competing against those who will build it for 1/300th of the price.
2) The people who would have been employed manufacturing said products or providing such services are competing against people who must / can / will work for 1/300th of the cost. Can you live on 1/300th of whatever you currently take in? I cannot.
Actually I'm more talking about the prevalent copy and paste strategy used to make 'counterfeit' (although identical) products for everything from clothing to networking hardware and medicine and their policy of commercial and governmental industrial espionage to steal, quite literally, any information that may be of use to them - be it design information or resource location information.
Or perhaps you're one of these people who thinks that intangibles can't be stolen, regardless of how much real time and effort was put into developing the intangible?
Slashdot Mirror
steal
[steel] Show IPA ,verb, stole, stolen, stealing, noun
verb (used with object)
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal
Very inaccurate. Fuel is a considerable part of the cost of operating a private aircraft.
http://ben.com/flying/costown.html
...all of the members of Pakistan's high court were replaced today, as the previous members all died of, according to the official government report, accidental bullet wounds to the chest and head.
More likely they come back as consultants or part time employees because they're asked to and there's a need that they can fill that you more junior people aren't filling, not because they don't know what to do with themselves.
Cutting people that aren't as profitable is one way to continue doing well by business standards. The longer people on the payroll contributing their lives to make the owners rich, the more they cost - if you don't generate more profit for the company than people in third world countries who are willing to work for 1/10th to 1/300th of what it costs to keep you, why should the greedy bastards keep you on staff when they can cut you and improve their bottom line?
FTFY
I find it easy enough to image someone who is not an expert in computers going to the wrong web page (ie typo in the bank name www.banksrsu.com instead of www.banksrus.com) and being faced with username, login and ONE code entry...which doesn't work and so the page reloads and they're asked for ANOTHER code entry. Granted most people would give up after trying a few times but nonetheless it's trivial to get a minimum of three or four codes + username and password information.
I have a card from one of my banks where there are eight columns and six rows giving 48 codes which the bad guys now have three or four of. If they are persistent or lucky they might just be able to initiate a wire transfer out of my account (I have no idea if the bank locks the account after several bad code entries but I suspect not as they assume valid username & password).
One time tokens (ie securID) should be required for ALL bank accounts for any and all online transactions.
You are accurate but a one time physical token (ie SecureID) would still be safer for the customer. The bank SHOULD be using these (my bank does) and as they are not then arguably they are to some degree or another responsible.
This TAN code is probably a set of codes on a card that the customer is instructed to input based on [ column, row ], when they want to do something on line. I have something similar here in France. Seems this customer was fooled into putting more than one of them, along with username & password most likely, into the fake web page and the bad guys then were able to use one of them to make the transfer.
I have a business account in Hong Kong that they've provided me a one time token similar to Secure ID for which is going to be a lot more secure unless someone physically got a hold of it, along with my username and password so overall I do agree with you that banks should be using these tokens instead of the matrix cards.
The TSA doesn't exist to protect the people waiting in lines. It exists to protect the buildings of financial and governmental institutions.
What about 'mining' all the crap we've already put up into space that's floating around our planet as rubbish now? I admit to ignorance but just the same I would guess there's enough there to be able to build a decent space station or lunar base.
FUCK YEAH!
Pirating is illegal.
Law isn't always right. Also, illegal where?
Do you need law to tell you what is right? Is taking something from someone else just because you can right?
It is wrong.
In your opinion.
Certainly
There is no justification
In your opinion.
for taking
If "taking" is defined as "copying," that fits.
So I can take pictures of you and your family and you wouldn't mind what I do with them then? Certainly that's just copying.
Should all of the research and development into everything be unprotected then, as copying the results is only copying?
What do you do for work? Would you mind if someone took the output of your work and gave it away for free?
Sorry but that strikes me as just more rationalization to be able to take what you want without paying for it. You can give your own music (or anything else) away for free and no one can stop you. You can even sell it and no one can stop you from doing that either.
Rationalizing a bit aren't we?
Pirating is illegal. It is wrong. There is no justification for taking what we want without paying for what we legally should be paying for.
If you don't want to pay for it you shouldn't have it.
...an axe then as I don't have IP on my telly...
That's just wrong. Republicans... conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charities than liberals; they also donate more blood and time. Paying taxes and sinking this country into a fiscal debt crisis is not "charity." If you are not making the decision, it's not "charity" and it's not "magnanimous" on your part. If you believe in Jesus then you must believe did NOT support not giving people the choice... you have to be judged on your OWN actions, not what you were forced to do. (for the record, I'm not religious, and I use this very same argument against religious people who want to control my life, too)
Who Gives and Who Doesn't.. Yes, you can call it biased... yet no liberals have ever been able to disprove it, just attack the authors without substantive arguments.
The article makes very interesting associations without any proof of causation. Just because the people in one area that happens to be primarily republican purportedly gave more than the people in another area which is primarily liberal does not at all indicate whether the people giving are republican or liberal, or rich or poor. Already that they were collecting at Macy's and Wal-Mart breaks the comparison as Macy's is a bit more expensive than Wal-Mart. It's a bullshit report. The entire thought of the rich being more generous is idiotic to start with so I didn't bother reading the second part of the article as it only confirms this and has no bearing on the conservative vs. liberal point you're making. It would have been more interesting to know if the rich who do not give are conservative or liberal but of course that would have gone against the slant of the article against 'liberals' so it wasn't included.
They use religion to back up their opinions where it is supported, and any other useful tidbit when it doesn't. Do you think Jesus would have supported the NRA?
I don't think Jesus would care one way or another about the NRA.
I want to think you're joking but I suppose that you aren't. How could Jesus, proponent of peace, father of the meek, possibly not care about the propagation of weapons that are only meant to kill? What an amazing thing to say.
Cutting school budgets to get the latest F-35 bombers that the military doesn't even want?
You're right about one thing, it's not based on religion that they do this... it's based on what's written in the constitution; based on the failure of our educational system despite the wanton amounts of money we throw at it (BTW, Bush increased educational spending more than anyone else in the previous four decades... what did he get for it? The disdain of the left, of course.).
It's not based on what's written in the constitution. It's based on pockets being filled - contractors and politicians both.
Bush got disdain because he appeared to be a complete idiot not only during times of crisis but more or less every time he opened his mouth. If he increased educational spending it was no doubt on the request of his wife but whatever. America's problems with education are not particularly financial. More money won't change that conservatives / republicans are trying to teach creationism, for example.
As far as military spending - you're right. I'm not a republican, I think they've been terrible leaders since Bush's election... but I also think democrats seem to have been inspired to one-up the terribleness.
Think what you want - I won't change your mind, I realize that the people asking the most for open mindedness are typically the most closed minded of all. But between the way liberals want to destroy this country and the way the republicans want to destroy this country, the republicans are much less "bad," even if they're not good.
I don't think that either liberals or republicans particularly want to destroy the country, but I di
"Republican's don't want to outlaw birth control. They just don't think the government should pay for it."
Well you're half right anyway. Some or most Republicans (I won't say all but might be) are or are trying to tap the political base of Christians in the US who are often openly against birth control (behind closed doors being another situation altogether of course) as it is against god's command to be fruitful and multiply and in some cases is perceived as being equal to abortion.
Not paying for birth control is just one step in the direction that they want to go which is anti-abortion, anti-birth control, anti-separation of church and state.
"While certain Christian idiots have done things like bomb abortion clinics (thereby killing both doctors and those seeking abortions), I ask if you've ever seen one try to poison a school full of children for being taught evolution? I thought not."
Not yet anyway.
Religion is irrational. Religious fundamentalists are extremely irrational. Anyone irrational enough to kill people to 'save the unborn babies' is potentially eventually insane enough to poison children being taught something against their irrationality.
Not saying it WILL happen just that when you're examining extreme irrationality it is difficult to know what will and will not happen.
"Ask a devout Christian or Jew if that's the case and see what he says."
So you're asking the poster to ask the devout Christian or Jew to define it then, are you not?.
In the end it is accurate to say that religions are defined by their followers as religions have only the power that their followers give to them. No followers, no religion.
Sounds like you haven't actually had kids yet. If so, then you only think you've won. When the time actually comes then you'll be fighting a whole different fight over the same exact issues.
That's unfair to soccer moms. My kid's mom is a soccer mom but she's also a doctor's daughter.
If you mix religion with weak education you get ignorant people making bad decisions, just as we're seeing here.
It's part of the business model and as such is a cost that is factored in. The reason that companies have such an easy return policy is for customer satisfaction - to get and keep customers. Look at L.L. Bean for example, who've been in business for a long time.
http://www.llbean.com/customerService/aboutLLBean/guarantee.html
If you don't like a store's policy, don't buy there. I will never buy at a store that has such a restrictive policy.
Whatever - you want to argue about words and you don't talk about the actual topics at all.
Semantics (from Greek smantiká, neuter plural of smantikós)is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics
It is semantics. Either discuss the topics or stop wasting my time with meaningless argument over, yes, semantics.
If you have to fall back on semantics to win the argument then there isn't much point is there.
I'll rephrase it for you. The Chinese (and others but at this point more the Chinese than anyone else) feel free to access valuable information, using any methods possible, and copy what they can and profit from it, without any restriction or thoughts of remuneration to those who put the time, effort and whatever other form of investment was necessary to design, create, build, test, verify, refine, etc products and services numerous beyond counting. This might take the form of hacking and breaking into systems or it might take the somewhat less refined method of videotaping what the companies you've invited to come and build you a maglev train as a demo have built (which when they were caught on film doing so actually stated this was their research and development, which in itself says a lot).
This hurts the people who live in the countries where such intangibles are being developed in at least two ways that immediately come to mind:
1) The people who invested time, money, effort, etc. who wanted to make a living from their work now find themselves competing against those who will build it for 1/300th of the price.
2) The people who would have been employed manufacturing said products or providing such services are competing against people who must / can / will work for 1/300th of the cost. Can you live on 1/300th of whatever you currently take in? I cannot.
Actually I'm more talking about the prevalent copy and paste strategy used to make 'counterfeit' (although identical) products for everything from clothing to networking hardware and medicine and their policy of commercial and governmental industrial espionage to steal, quite literally, any information that may be of use to them - be it design information or resource location information.
Or perhaps you're one of these people who thinks that intangibles can't be stolen, regardless of how much real time and effort was put into developing the intangible?