Without the government most of the uber-rich wouldn't stay uber-rich. Most of them would lose their money in a hurry, because everything that they rely on for their cash is built into the system. The people that *would* make money would be those providing indispensable services or inventions (in a perfect world, of course)...
The problem is giving the folks that hold the money a *reason* to upgrade. See, you can explain to a tech guy about all of the holes and bugs and he can agree that an update to ________ would be fucking awesome!
But the folks holding the cash hear about all of the same bugs and holes and they nod and they think, "The software we've got has been getting the job done. Also, I remember the last time we replaced the software it was three months of people learning, and technological failures, and people making mistakes before any real work got done, and another six months after that before people started feeling comfortable with it. It was two full years before I stopped hearing them bitch about it." and all of those rational, reasoned arguments go straight out the window.
Now, that's just one reason - I have personally been witness to quite a few companies using software that has never been upgraded before. Any comparable software is vastly out of reach to a small business, so it's a big deal to have to spend $3-4k on six licenses when he needs 12. So you end up with someone that would absolutely LOVE to upgrade from IE6, but unfortunately, the server software is still only available for Windows NT, and can't be migrated for a variety of different reasons - I could go on.
No shit...it's obvious that not doing anything at all isn't going to fix the problem. Normally I don't support banning things because they "might" be affecting something else, but under these circumstances I'd say it might be worth some experimenting to see what might *help*. FFS, the more we sit and wait to see what's going on, the fewer bees we have to do their job. I realize other animals pollinate as well, but they don't do it nearly as efficiently as bees...and frankly, I think this problem is much easier to solve than the problem of how to get our fucking food to grow in five years.
I hardly ever purchase the extended warranty, reasons following the caveats:)
If the item is over $100 AND the item is a necessity that frequently breaks (I can't count the number of vacuums I've had to buy over the years that have just flat-out failed) AND the warranty is reasonably priced (I'll pay about 10%...no more than that).
The reasons that I *don't* usually buy the warranty is that I take care of my shit. I've had more smartphones than I can count and have only had 1 single incident that required a replacement (fell out of my pocket into a hot tub...I know, I know). I rarely drop my devices, yet (in the case of the smartphone/computers/etc) I use them constantly...I'm just "careful".
The other reason is that 99% of the time it requires keeping/filing paperwork and THEN having to remember that I actually bought the warranty 8 months later when the vacuum breaks. If I don't remember (likely), it's a waste of money to buy it...and I can recognize my own deficiencies in that area.
Not only that, if what I'm protecting against is shitty engineering I consider those costly lessons in what companies produce reliable devices. If someone offers me an extended warranty "in case of manufacturer defects" I will usually buy something else entirely. AFAIC if they are preempting a problem (or potential problem that they suspect will happen), they shouldn't be charging me so much for what I'm buying.
The problem with certs isn't the certificate itself, nor the information that it's supposed to cover. It's in the 'boot camps' that teach people how to pass tests instead of understand the information. So many people buy their way to a certificate that it's significance is completely wasted - I certainly won't hire someone just because they have a certificate, and the more certs a person has the more that prompts me to test what they actually COMPREHEND instead of what they SAY that they know.
We had a guy that got hired - MCSE among various Cisco certs, was able to answer questions like he knew what he was doing. We found out a few weeks later that the dumbass wasn't even capable of connecting a shared printer to the network. This isn't an isolated incident either - by far, the most intelligent IT Professionals that I've dealt with have gotten their education as a means to find a decent job, not as a means to teach them their bailiwick. Their knowledge comes first, and they only shoot for the degrees/certs when they realize that zero degrees means zero work. That's the true travesty here - not that they exist, but that the tail is wagging the dog.
Is this a surprise to anyone? Most states have most of their Democrats near their city centers, and most states have Republicans on the outskirts. I think the problem with drawing these lines has more to do with the arbitrary manner that they're applied - if you think that homeless people should have assistance, for example, that automatically pegs you as a Democrat...but the reality is that maybe I'm sick of tripping over homeless people living on the street? Rural areas don't have those sorts of problems, so they tend to not show up on an individuals' radar. Likewise, folks in more rural areas might have certain views about protecting business - but that's largely because the businesses in their areas are SMALL businesses that, if they were to close, would really hurt the community.
Don't get me wrong - this is just one perception that has many more variables than I'm willing (or able) to enumerate here, but it seems that the party lines (at least from an individual citizens' perspective) seems to largely depend on the problems that those individuals deal with every single day. People in cities deal with different problems than people in rural areas...it's not a big surprise to me that their priorities are different.
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. He was under no obligation to steal from anyone, but by playing the game he accepted their rules. Unfortunately (perhaps) we don't get to redefine other people's rules by what we judge to be "fair".
Technically you're probably right, however I know that Casinos in Vegas do actually keep photographs and blacklists - if someone is in their books as being a "cheater" (to include card counting), the Casino is well within it's right to escort them from the premises. I have no idea how other places handle it (Atlantic City or Native Casinos), but in Vegas you generally don't get away with cheating for very long (both card counting and this exploit would be considered cheating by the casinos)
This is why the Gaming Commission is required to test/inspect the machines (to include deposits and payouts) on a regular basis. Until you have evidence that this is happening you're just trying to justify theft.
If the machine were found to be faulty, the individual would have their provable losses returned to them, probably up to a few hundred dollars. The casinos in Vegas are smart enough to recognize that it would cost them more to go to court and would be more than happy to return their money (money that, if the customer is happy, is probably going to be given back to the casino within a few hours anyway).
Mainly because you're not playing against other players, you're playing against the house who defines the rules (the Gaming Commission is involved enough to make sure that there's a fair chance of winning, but "fair" does not imply "fair to the players").
I will hit anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to get kicked and your Google Glasses destroyed.
I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.
So passionate about this, yet you're constantly being filmed wherever you go and have no problem with it? Is the difference between this and a guy with a smartphone that you can tell the guy with the smartphone is recording you from his awkward hold of the phone? What if a "recording" indicator were placed on them (like a red light)? Would you still be so angry about this?
And, just so you know, it's not recording all the time, only when you tell it to record. Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.
The parent is full of shit anyway - posting as AC? And you expect us to believe that your balls will be big enough to walk up to a random stranger in a public place and punch them? Because of what they're wearing? Right. You'll do what the rest of us do: Mutter under our breath and turn our backs to them.
*FUCK*, the USA's justice system is perverted these days. Do any of you even bother to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral anymore?
In the USA at least, if the police have a legal reason to enter your home, (even including you allowing them in through the front door for any reason), they can then seize anything they can see that is also known to be illegal from any vantage point they have that is legal. Standing outside your window and looking in is not a legal vantage point, but you opening the front door would create one at the entryway just as the warrant makes your entire kitchen one. If they respond to a noise complaint, which doesn't even require a warrant, then see a bag of weed on the table when you open the door, they absolutely can enter your home, seize the drugs and arrest you. Its called Plain View Doctrine and its irrelevant to the warrant in as far as the photo in your post is concerned. It definitely could result in a more inclusive warrant being issued to search for more evidence concerning the murder, but that still wouldn't negate the fact that the original warrant would allow them to seize the photo on the fridge, a gun with the serial number filed off or anything else illegal that is in plain view, or in any place they expected to find the marijuana they came for in your kitchen.
Plain view. The police can make a warrantless search or seizure if they are lawfully in a position to see and access the evidence, so long as that evidence is obviously incriminating. For example, if the police enter a house with a valid search warrant to search for and seize some stolen electronics and then see a bag of drugs in plain view on the coffee table, they can seize the drugs too, even though the warrant didn't specifically authorize that seizure. Similarly, the police could seize the drugs without a warrant, or look at any other documents or things left in plain view in the house, if there were exigent circumstances that led the police into the house — for example, if a suspect they were chasing ran into the house, or if they heard gunshots from inside. Even a law-abiding citizen who does not have any contraband or evidence that the police would want to seize may still have sensitive documents in plain view that one would not want the authorities to see.
The plain view exception alone does not allow the police to enter your home or office without a warrant. So, for example, even if the police see evidence through your window, they cannot enter and seize it. However, plain view can combine with other exceptions to allow searches that might otherwise require a warrant. For example, if the person with the bag of drugs in the previous example saw the police looking through his window, then grabbed the bag and ran towards the bathroom as if he was about to flush the evidence down the toilet, that would be an exigent circumstance and the police could enter without a warrant to stop him.
...starting with doctors buying software that's appropriately priced for their task.
I was involved in a full system upgrade for a medical facility. There were two huge problems that I had with the upgrade, and both of them had to do with the cost. After rolling out the software for a few million dollars, the company decided that the software that had been specialty-built was not going to work for them and a few more million dollars later they upgraded (again) to a better system. I've left since that second system was rolled out, but everyone that I've spoken to at the company has informed me that it's a polished turd (as much of that software is).
These small software companys CAN recoup their costs, they're simply marking up the price because they're dealing with doctors. All they see are dollars and cents and who *wouldn't* want to make a few mil for a years' worth of work? They get to take the next year off to travel the world and rent hookers until the next OS release, then they get to change a few lines of code and roll it out again (with a significant markup, of course). It's a racket, but I think they're just taking a cue from the rest of corporate America.
Are you seriously that bad at reading comprehension? I was referring to Jeremiah's comment, although I guess to the standard American it's better to react badly and THEN think about things, rather than thinking about things and reacting appropriately. Since you've already reacted badly, at least continue to step two.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry - it is - the drones fly so high up in the air that you can't see them, but they can see YOU.
Without the government most of the uber-rich wouldn't stay uber-rich. Most of them would lose their money in a hurry, because everything that they rely on for their cash is built into the system. The people that *would* make money would be those providing indispensable services or inventions (in a perfect world, of course)...
I didn't say that the law was a problem, only that it didn't work.
And what bastion of freedom do you hail from, Mr. AC?
Doesn't this kind of establish that Voter ID laws don't work?
To send spam from, of course!
The problem is giving the folks that hold the money a *reason* to upgrade. See, you can explain to a tech guy about all of the holes and bugs and he can agree that an update to ________ would be fucking awesome!
But the folks holding the cash hear about all of the same bugs and holes and they nod and they think, "The software we've got has been getting the job done. Also, I remember the last time we replaced the software it was three months of people learning, and technological failures, and people making mistakes before any real work got done, and another six months after that before people started feeling comfortable with it. It was two full years before I stopped hearing them bitch about it." and all of those rational, reasoned arguments go straight out the window.
Now, that's just one reason - I have personally been witness to quite a few companies using software that has never been upgraded before. Any comparable software is vastly out of reach to a small business, so it's a big deal to have to spend $3-4k on six licenses when he needs 12. So you end up with someone that would absolutely LOVE to upgrade from IE6, but unfortunately, the server software is still only available for Windows NT, and can't be migrated for a variety of different reasons - I could go on.
But I won't.
No shit...it's obvious that not doing anything at all isn't going to fix the problem. Normally I don't support banning things because they "might" be affecting something else, but under these circumstances I'd say it might be worth some experimenting to see what might *help*. FFS, the more we sit and wait to see what's going on, the fewer bees we have to do their job. I realize other animals pollinate as well, but they don't do it nearly as efficiently as bees...and frankly, I think this problem is much easier to solve than the problem of how to get our fucking food to grow in five years.
I hardly ever purchase the extended warranty, reasons following the caveats :)
If the item is over $100 AND the item is a necessity that frequently breaks (I can't count the number of vacuums I've had to buy over the years that have just flat-out failed) AND the warranty is reasonably priced (I'll pay about 10%...no more than that).
The reasons that I *don't* usually buy the warranty is that I take care of my shit. I've had more smartphones than I can count and have only had 1 single incident that required a replacement (fell out of my pocket into a hot tub...I know, I know). I rarely drop my devices, yet (in the case of the smartphone/computers/etc) I use them constantly...I'm just "careful".
The other reason is that 99% of the time it requires keeping/filing paperwork and THEN having to remember that I actually bought the warranty 8 months later when the vacuum breaks. If I don't remember (likely), it's a waste of money to buy it...and I can recognize my own deficiencies in that area.
Not only that, if what I'm protecting against is shitty engineering I consider those costly lessons in what companies produce reliable devices. If someone offers me an extended warranty "in case of manufacturer defects" I will usually buy something else entirely. AFAIC if they are preempting a problem (or potential problem that they suspect will happen), they shouldn't be charging me so much for what I'm buying.
The problem with certs isn't the certificate itself, nor the information that it's supposed to cover. It's in the 'boot camps' that teach people how to pass tests instead of understand the information. So many people buy their way to a certificate that it's significance is completely wasted - I certainly won't hire someone just because they have a certificate, and the more certs a person has the more that prompts me to test what they actually COMPREHEND instead of what they SAY that they know.
We had a guy that got hired - MCSE among various Cisco certs, was able to answer questions like he knew what he was doing. We found out a few weeks later that the dumbass wasn't even capable of connecting a shared printer to the network. This isn't an isolated incident either - by far, the most intelligent IT Professionals that I've dealt with have gotten their education as a means to find a decent job, not as a means to teach them their bailiwick. Their knowledge comes first, and they only shoot for the degrees/certs when they realize that zero degrees means zero work. That's the true travesty here - not that they exist, but that the tail is wagging the dog.
I think I just lack empathy for non-humans. Companies aren't people. When they suffer, I just see numbers changing on a ledger.
That's funny...when companies make people suffer that's all they notice too...
Is this a surprise to anyone? Most states have most of their Democrats near their city centers, and most states have Republicans on the outskirts. I think the problem with drawing these lines has more to do with the arbitrary manner that they're applied - if you think that homeless people should have assistance, for example, that automatically pegs you as a Democrat...but the reality is that maybe I'm sick of tripping over homeless people living on the street? Rural areas don't have those sorts of problems, so they tend to not show up on an individuals' radar. Likewise, folks in more rural areas might have certain views about protecting business - but that's largely because the businesses in their areas are SMALL businesses that, if they were to close, would really hurt the community.
Don't get me wrong - this is just one perception that has many more variables than I'm willing (or able) to enumerate here, but it seems that the party lines (at least from an individual citizens' perspective) seems to largely depend on the problems that those individuals deal with every single day. People in cities deal with different problems than people in rural areas...it's not a big surprise to me that their priorities are different.
If you don't like the rules, don't play the game. He was under no obligation to steal from anyone, but by playing the game he accepted their rules. Unfortunately (perhaps) we don't get to redefine other people's rules by what we judge to be "fair".
Technically you're probably right, however I know that Casinos in Vegas do actually keep photographs and blacklists - if someone is in their books as being a "cheater" (to include card counting), the Casino is well within it's right to escort them from the premises. I have no idea how other places handle it (Atlantic City or Native Casinos), but in Vegas you generally don't get away with cheating for very long (both card counting and this exploit would be considered cheating by the casinos)
This is why the Gaming Commission is required to test/inspect the machines (to include deposits and payouts) on a regular basis. Until you have evidence that this is happening you're just trying to justify theft.
If the machine were found to be faulty, the individual would have their provable losses returned to them, probably up to a few hundred dollars. The casinos in Vegas are smart enough to recognize that it would cost them more to go to court and would be more than happy to return their money (money that, if the customer is happy, is probably going to be given back to the casino within a few hours anyway).
Video Poker != Poker
Mainly because you're not playing against other players, you're playing against the house who defines the rules (the Gaming Commission is involved enough to make sure that there's a fair chance of winning, but "fair" does not imply "fair to the players").
Now if only we had decent media outlets reporting real news...
I will hit anyone wearing Google Glass. You are stealing privacy from all of us. Get ready to get kicked and your Google Glasses destroyed.
I hope this becomes a trend, just like what happened to that guy who weared AR glasses in France. Break them and punch in the face.
So passionate about this, yet you're constantly being filmed wherever you go and have no problem with it? Is the difference between this and a guy with a smartphone that you can tell the guy with the smartphone is recording you from his awkward hold of the phone? What if a "recording" indicator were placed on them (like a red light)? Would you still be so angry about this?
And, just so you know, it's not recording all the time, only when you tell it to record. Not all that much different than an underpowered smartphone with voice commands, strapped to your head.
The parent is full of shit anyway - posting as AC? And you expect us to believe that your balls will be big enough to walk up to a random stranger in a public place and punch them? Because of what they're wearing? Right. You'll do what the rest of us do: Mutter under our breath and turn our backs to them.
That's only if you're seen at all.
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/98319189.html
(though now I wonder what kind of ads adsense shows lawyers?)
Probably mugshots at TSG
*FUCK*, the USA's justice system is perverted these days. Do any of you even bother to distinguish between good and evil, right and wrong, moral and immoral anymore?
Not in any discernible way, no.
In the USA at least, if the police have a legal reason to enter your home, (even including you allowing them in through the front door for any reason), they can then seize anything they can see that is also known to be illegal from any vantage point they have that is legal. Standing outside your window and looking in is not a legal vantage point, but you opening the front door would create one at the entryway just as the warrant makes your entire kitchen one. If they respond to a noise complaint, which doesn't even require a warrant, then see a bag of weed on the table when you open the door, they absolutely can enter your home, seize the drugs and arrest you. Its called Plain View Doctrine and its irrelevant to the warrant in as far as the photo in your post is concerned. It definitely could result in a more inclusive warrant being issued to search for more evidence concerning the murder, but that still wouldn't negate the fact that the original warrant would allow them to seize the photo on the fridge, a gun with the serial number filed off or anything else illegal that is in plain view, or in any place they expected to find the marijuana they came for in your kitchen.
Not *entirely* accurate... From https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/warrantless
Plain view. The police can make a warrantless search or seizure if they are lawfully in a position to see and access the evidence, so long as that evidence is obviously incriminating. For example, if the police enter a house with a valid search warrant to search for and seize some stolen electronics and then see a bag of drugs in plain view on the coffee table, they can seize the drugs too, even though the warrant didn't specifically authorize that seizure. Similarly, the police could seize the drugs without a warrant, or look at any other documents or things left in plain view in the house, if there were exigent circumstances that led the police into the house — for example, if a suspect they were chasing ran into the house, or if they heard gunshots from inside. Even a law-abiding citizen who does not have any contraband or evidence that the police would want to seize may still have sensitive documents in plain view that one would not want the authorities to see.
The plain view exception alone does not allow the police to enter your home or office without a warrant. So, for example, even if the police see evidence through your window, they cannot enter and seize it. However, plain view can combine with other exceptions to allow searches that might otherwise require a warrant. For example, if the person with the bag of drugs in the previous example saw the police looking through his window, then grabbed the bag and ran towards the bathroom as if he was about to flush the evidence down the toilet, that would be an exigent circumstance and the police could enter without a warrant to stop him.
True, but horrible soundtrack...I generally have to stick to just the ambient noise...
...starting with doctors buying software that's appropriately priced for their task.
I was involved in a full system upgrade for a medical facility. There were two huge problems that I had with the upgrade, and both of them had to do with the cost. After rolling out the software for a few million dollars, the company decided that the software that had been specialty-built was not going to work for them and a few more million dollars later they upgraded (again) to a better system. I've left since that second system was rolled out, but everyone that I've spoken to at the company has informed me that it's a polished turd (as much of that software is).
These small software companys CAN recoup their costs, they're simply marking up the price because they're dealing with doctors. All they see are dollars and cents and who *wouldn't* want to make a few mil for a years' worth of work? They get to take the next year off to travel the world and rent hookers until the next OS release, then they get to change a few lines of code and roll it out again (with a significant markup, of course). It's a racket, but I think they're just taking a cue from the rest of corporate America.
Are you seriously that bad at reading comprehension? I was referring to Jeremiah's comment, although I guess to the standard American it's better to react badly and THEN think about things, rather than thinking about things and reacting appropriately. Since you've already reacted badly, at least continue to step two.