I assume that you cannot sue in small claims court if Equifax says your data/credit report/personal information wasn't affected in the hack?
To sue someone on a small claim court, you need to 1) have damages that can be quantify to an amount of money (not imaginary amount) and 2) can prove that the damages are done by their action (not circumstantial evidence or very likely to lose). If you are sure you have both, then go for it; otherwise, don't waste your time.
You've not considered another possibility - that Equifax actually did the best they could and it just wasn't good enough. Given that all security can be compromised given sufficient effort this could simply be a case of them falling foul of measured risk.
I agreed that there is no perfect security and it is impossible to have absolute security especially when time goes by. However, I disagree with your opinion that their "best" is no where near up-to-par. To me, it seems that many Americans think "good enough" is what they aim for in everything. That is unacceptable to me. Especially, it should at least be "good" or "excellent" and not "good enough". If the quality is "good enough", then there will be many of this kind of situations occur over and over again.
As TFA already pointed out, the way they handled their mistake demonstrated how amateur they are -- domain name and the page content of their support look like a phishing site. Though, one non-obvious thing on the site, when you want to check if you are affected by the breach, is the digital contract you have to agree that you will give up your legal right to take them to court. It makes me wonder how competent they are in handling any thing besides protecting themselves.
I understand why you want to forgive them for what they did. However, i do believe and agreed with GP that a hash punishment needs to be put on them in order to give an example/precedence to others that they need to be more careful and ponder more on what they are doing, not how much profit margin they can increase. Even though there is no perfect security, it does not mean people should let go a mistake of others that directly impact them every time a mistake happens, especially with this kind of mistake which has a huge impact on the whole nation. Some mistakes need to be straighten out to ensure that there wouldn't be another later on (including from anyone else). I understand that too many punishments would discourage others to act; however, too much forgiveness will also spoil the ones that are forgiven. I do believe that something needs to be done to put an end of this kind of carelessness.
that they will find something and some one (or group) who held accountable of the breach. Though, often times, this kind of investigation is just a political stunt to show constituents that they have done something. Nothing will be found, done, or changed according to the history...
Even if what they said works, the idea is to reduce hurricane threat. They don't think further of what other impacts on other thing else on the Earth? This is just an advertising. Not a real implementation.
The best solution is to have a professional society that elects boards to review submissions for official taxonomical names. If it is true that there are just a few bad actors, they can be blacklisted and their names circulated to the media at large, preventing them from claiming the right to name a new "discovery" that they are attempting to hijack from another researcher or group. The society could also publish clear rules about naming and who has the right to name. Once it is clearly delineated, violators can be rightly blacklisted from ever making official, new names.
I suspect, though it is not spelled out in the article that this is likely not much of a problem in the US or Europe, but in other regions of the world where there is less funding and more pressure on scientists to produce results, and less penalty for stealing other people's research.
Actually, this conflict of taxonomical naming has been going on for a quite a while already. There is something that TFA doesn't point out and it seems to be quite a red flag to me.
From TFA:
According to the official record of species names, governed by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the snake belongs to the genus Spracklandus. What you don’t know is that almost no taxonomists use that name. Instead, most researchers use the unofficial name that pops up in Wikipedia and most scientific journal articles: Afronaja.
I have searched the word "Spracklandus" related to snake and I found this Conference Paper - January 2015. One interesting point is that the paper is attacking the person who was pushing the word "Spracklandus" to become an official snake genus. Now who is doing the real vandalism??? I don't know...
Linnaeus's two-part species names, often Latin-based, consist of both a genus name and a species name, i.e. Homo sapiens.
Why Homo sapiens? The fact that they chose a species that includes white male christians should not go unchallenged. Very problematic. How convenient that they left out Homo erectus, a much more wholesome species.
From your quote, the 'Homo sapiens' is just an example to illustrate how the two-part species names would look like. You just pick and choose what you want to see to make a nonsensical comment.
Then again, the main characteristic of Homo sapiens is not derived from "white male christians" but rather wise-man (modern human) which covers a whole lot of different subspecies. On the other hand, Homo electus main characteristic is standing upright.
You just want to troll people and attempt to pull in racial political BS into the discussion. You are the problematic, not TFA.
The catcher then gives the signs to the pitcher about what pitch to throw next. The catcher needs to know what the next pitch is so he can position accordingly to catch it. There are also signals to the defense about positioning, which can change from one pitch to the next.
So basically the catcher is incompetent and the pitcher is incapable of picking his own pitches?
Try watching cricket, a similar game in which the guy with the ball makes his own decision on how to deliver it. A fast bowler will choose from an in swinger, out swinger, reverse swing, seam, leg break, off break, yorker, bouncer, slow ball, on a length, full, on the leg side, on off stump, outside off.. all these options and more.
He also knows how the field is set and will bowl accordingly.
Why does baseball need every single fucking play directed by someone else?
You are comparing apple with orange. Baseball is NOT cricket. And it appears that you don't understand baseball at all if you think that the catcher is incompetent and pitcher is incapable of pitching. Baseball is about cooperative between pitcher and catcher. They must be in sync. If they could have telepathy, then there wouldn't be hand signals.
Cricket, on the other hand, is one side only. It is a completely different game strategy. If you can't distinguish between cricket and baseball, then you shouldn't make this kind of silly comment.
The only person I've known with a pacemaker was a girl who's heart rate would go astronomically high for no apparent reason. It only happened a few times a week and the pacemaker would kick in and bring it back down.
Other than during those events, the pacemaker didn't do anything.
That's not a pace maker. That is defibrillator. Don't be confused. Pace maker is to accelerate heart beat from too slow to normal. Defibrillator, on the other hand, is to slow down the heart beat from abnormal to normal range.
In Canada, if you buy a car, even finance it, the car is yours, you hold the title. However the lender has a lien on it which prevents you from selling it without their consent, and allows them to sue to recoup costs (usually the car) if the account goes into arrears.
I have no idea how remote disabling devices are even legal unless it was agreed to in the contract.
This is not the case. Please read TFA. The car was "lease" and then "bought out" (paid off). Then later on, the dealer attempted to extort $200 after the car was bought.
That lean means that you don't really own it yet. You can't dispose of it as you see fit, you can't modify it as you wish, etc. You can't even sell it without getting permission from the lien holder.
Yes, you own it even with a lien. However, the lien will legally stop selling process if you attempt to sell whatever property/thing that has a lien on because the lien is there to ensure that you WILL pay the money you owed. Thus, the lien has nothing to do with ownership. It is somewhat a collateral of the money you owed to the lien holder. Oh and yes, you can dispose/damage/destroy whatever property/item that has a lien on it (think of getting into an accident and it is total). However, you still owe the money to the lien holder whether or not you have the possession of the property/item.
Leasing a car doesn't give any ownership to the person who signed the contract but rather the right to use it under some conditions. Buying a car, however, gives the buyer the ownership of the car except the car is put on a lien by a finance (whoever finance the car for the buyer), but the buyer still owns the car out right.
You literally argued the same thing as the guy you were trying to correct.
Not exactly. The guy just clarified that "leasing" and "buying" a car are 2 different processes. Leasing a car doesn't give any ownership to the buyer but rather the right to use it under some conditions. Buying a car, however, gives you the ownership of the car except the car is put on a lien by a finance (whoever finance the car for you), but you still own the car out right. The GP indicated his/her misunderstanding of the process in the 1st paragraph.
After all, just under half the country voted for a criminal, they should be audited for being criminals themselves based on their party affiliation.
Actually way less than half. You forgot how many turned out to vote (less than 60% of legitimate voters) and less than half of those turn-out voted for him.
Being audited requires production of huge amounts of paperwork
If you get audited, the first thing you should do is hire the best tax attorney that you can afford. Once you have legal representation, the IRS is required to deal directly with your tax lawyer, and can not contact you directly. Your attorney can cut way down on excessive demands for paperwork and documentation, which are mostly just fishing expeditions to intimidate naive taxpayers into agreeing to a "settlement" just to get the harassment to stop.
Of course, if you are poor, and can't afford a tax attorney, then you are screwed.
If you are being audited from your own individual income without owning a business, it should not be too difficult to prove the case. I once was audited and they claimed that I took a deduction which I was not qualified for. Of course, I was angry when I saw the letter because it is their fault not to double check what I claimed which was correct (and it should be simple). I had to submit a copied of some papers and a cover letter (explained my provided attachment for evidence). Then they cleared my case. It may take some times from you, but if you keep every thing when you file taxes, then it should not be a problem. If you don't have evidence (paper) to prove in the first place, don't put the number in when filing tax return, period.
My experience corresponds with GP; the majority of people who like to travel tend to be too limited in intelligence to even appreciate their immediate environment, yet use the whole "travel broadens the mind" to justify their trip to another continent.
In short, the majority of people are too stupid to even learn from their current environment, yet when they proclaim that travel will broaden their mind other stupid people agree with them.
My experience is both. I see stupid people like to travel. I see smart people like to travel. I see both stupid and smart people like to stay in place. Nothing is black and white or mutual exclusive.
Also, you need to define the word "smart" before you extend it to other thing else. What "smart" to me is someone who could make a right decision to any problems. The decision may not solve those problems but at least could ease the issue to somewhat much easier to be handled with later on. Furthermore, Smart != Intelligent but overlaps.
Reading comprehension failure by parkinglot777. How embarassing.
You are the one who failed reading comprehension. The statement alone wouldn't apply to my response. However, the AC replied to GP which implied (or generalized) that this (or any) topic on./ is a fake news which could result in damaging the business (in this case, it is code42). I directly responded that it was the truth (and quote what the official site said).
You, on the other hand, are similar to the other AC who did NOT read the whole things but rather made your own assumption. And then hide behind AC so that you wouldn't be embarrassed by your own failure.
Someone he could trust to play it straight while collecting the winnings and be fair about dividing up the spoils.
Have your agent do his/her thing, collect your share and play out your exit strategy.
Retire to an island somewhere.
And historically, this scheme hasn't been working very well because of human greed. Whoever is willing to be accomplice, the person is greedy. When the person sees that much money in hand, the person wants it all -- human nature. Very rare to see this scheme succeed...
So that being said... the only people who would ever play this are people who are simply too stupid to figure out that that $5 a week they spend is really $260 a year or $5200 every 20 years which is a luxury cruise for two plus airfare when you retire. So, after 50 years of work, you can be guaranteed at least a little bit of the rich life... or you can pay the stupid tax and wonder why when you retire that you can't do those nice things.
Here is what I disagree with on this part. I understand why you want to call those who play lottery stupid because majority of them wasted their money on it. However, would you still call those who won "stupid" too even though they may not know the maths you explained? Your maths shows that the risk is very high, and it is correct. But why do people still play? Because if they think that the reward is high enough for the gamble (subjective feeling), then they will play. Would that be called stupid? I don't think so unless they sold their house or put all their retirement funds on lottery and lost.
Theoretically, it is stupid to play unless you are on the winning side (which is very slim). However, I would call those who won stupid if they don't know how to manage the reward and spend it all without saving for their own retirement.
Maybe you could try this site for price comparison. Or maybe you could check this one for another overall comparison. To me, price of goods only doesn't mean anything much if it doesn't affect the local "cost of living".
... Plus a lot of these expenses are paid up front by the lawyers with no guarantee of being reimbursed later.
That's why lawyers/law firms will assess the success of any class law suit case before they act. If they don't see a chance or the reward is not worth doing, then they won't accept to do the job...
Who do you think created the vulnerability in the first place?
But you are right, I prefer to blame the process, not the people [wikiquote.org]. That implies blaming the big company before the individual.
Now you oversimplify/generalize the situation. The case should NOT be applied with what you are saying at all because there are other actions involved, and they aren't something you can overlook.
You are referring to the theory of justice that punishment is a deterrence (which, by the way, doesn't seem to have worked in this case). Are you sure that throwing people in jail is a good way to keep people out of jail?
No, this is NOT a theory but rather a simple psychology and real human behavior (don't you know?). Again, you kept saying jailing people. You are too stubborn to think out of the box. Punishment is NOT ONLY jail. There are many other ways and I already suggested one. However, some people could come to their sense when they are put in jail because they have common sense. Though, some don't.
I hate big companies because I want them to take responsibility for their mistakes and stop shifting their costs onto taxpayers?
See? You let your hatred blind you from reasoning and logic. Whatever cost them is your joyful. You need to let go your hatred and start using reasons to judge rather than your emotion. Again, let me try to put this on the table again. JAILING is NOT the ONLY WAY of PUNISHMENT.
To me, the mistakes began long before that. But maybe it's just me because I'm an engineer and I prefer to proactively find and fix the root cause of a problem rather than try to reactively clean up the mess it makes. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
I knew that the mistake began before that and I didn't deny it. However, the "wrong doing" is NOT a mistake. A wrong doing is done with an intention. A mistake is done without intent. This case contains 2 different parts of issues. Also, you will NEVER prevent every mistake from what you are doing. Your quote has nothing to do with this case. It is rather a suggestion of what (everyone) should be doing. It does NOT offer a solution if a mistake happens. If you want to quote it on any case like this, you would become a SJW, but I don't want anyone including you to be that kind of a person.
What is right should be acknowledge, and what is wrong should be punished. Simply throw all the blames to one side when it is clearly both have done wrong is extreme. An extreme solution often times (if not every time) never solves any issue but rather creates issues of the other extreme side ON TOP of the current issue. I know that I will not be able to convince you to move toward the center because that what extremists are (for both sides). I just want other readers to see my point if they ever come across these posts.
Makes you wonder how much damage could be done to a company's business by an unscrupulous Fake News post here on/. Would/. be legally liable? Hypothetically, of course.
What is fake news? You didn't even go to the link and make an assumption that the link is fake news???
Effective August 22, 2017, Code42 will no longer offer new – or renew – CrashPlan for Home subscriptions, and we will begin to sunset the product over several months. CrashPlan for Home will no longer be available for use starting October 23, 2018.
That's what on their official website (crashplan.com). In other words, those who have their plan can still use but will not be able to renew. Those who wants to get a new plan will not be able to get. Where is fake news you are talking about here?
Agree. And also blogger nowadays intend to misuse the word "hacker" because the word sounds more interesting to readers.
In a growing number of online attacks, hackers have been calling up Verizon, T-Mobile U.S., Sprint and AT&T and asking them to transfer control of a victim’s phone number to a device under the control of the hackers.
The above sentences from TFA is describing what you should call "social engineering" instead of hacking.
Slashdot Mirror
I assume that you cannot sue in small claims court if Equifax says your data/credit report/personal information wasn't affected in the hack?
To sue someone on a small claim court, you need to 1) have damages that can be quantify to an amount of money (not imaginary amount) and 2) can prove that the damages are done by their action (not circumstantial evidence or very likely to lose). If you are sure you have both, then go for it; otherwise, don't waste your time.
You've not considered another possibility - that Equifax actually did the best they could and it just wasn't good enough. Given that all security can be compromised given sufficient effort this could simply be a case of them falling foul of measured risk.
I agreed that there is no perfect security and it is impossible to have absolute security especially when time goes by. However, I disagree with your opinion that their "best" is no where near up-to-par. To me, it seems that many Americans think "good enough" is what they aim for in everything. That is unacceptable to me. Especially, it should at least be "good" or "excellent" and not "good enough". If the quality is "good enough", then there will be many of this kind of situations occur over and over again.
As TFA already pointed out, the way they handled their mistake demonstrated how amateur they are -- domain name and the page content of their support look like a phishing site. Though, one non-obvious thing on the site, when you want to check if you are affected by the breach, is the digital contract you have to agree that you will give up your legal right to take them to court. It makes me wonder how competent they are in handling any thing besides protecting themselves.
I understand why you want to forgive them for what they did. However, i do believe and agreed with GP that a hash punishment needs to be put on them in order to give an example/precedence to others that they need to be more careful and ponder more on what they are doing, not how much profit margin they can increase. Even though there is no perfect security, it does not mean people should let go a mistake of others that directly impact them every time a mistake happens, especially with this kind of mistake which has a huge impact on the whole nation. Some mistakes need to be straighten out to ensure that there wouldn't be another later on (including from anyone else). I understand that too many punishments would discourage others to act; however, too much forgiveness will also spoil the ones that are forgiven. I do believe that something needs to be done to put an end of this kind of carelessness.
that they will find something and some one (or group) who held accountable of the breach. Though, often times, this kind of investigation is just a political stunt to show constituents that they have done something. Nothing will be found, done, or changed according to the history...
Even if what they said works, the idea is to reduce hurricane threat. They don't think further of what other impacts on other thing else on the Earth? This is just an advertising. Not a real implementation.
The best solution is to have a professional society that elects boards to review submissions for official taxonomical names. If it is true that there are just a few bad actors, they can be blacklisted and their names circulated to the media at large, preventing them from claiming the right to name a new "discovery" that they are attempting to hijack from another researcher or group. The society could also publish clear rules about naming and who has the right to name. Once it is clearly delineated, violators can be rightly blacklisted from ever making official, new names.
I suspect, though it is not spelled out in the article that this is likely not much of a problem in the US or Europe, but in other regions of the world where there is less funding and more pressure on scientists to produce results, and less penalty for stealing other people's research.
Actually, this conflict of taxonomical naming has been going on for a quite a while already. There is something that TFA doesn't point out and it seems to be quite a red flag to me.
From TFA:
According to the official record of species names, governed by the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the snake belongs to the genus Spracklandus. What you don’t know is that almost no taxonomists use that name. Instead, most researchers use the unofficial name that pops up in Wikipedia and most scientific journal articles: Afronaja.
I have searched the word "Spracklandus" related to snake and I found this Conference Paper - January 2015. One interesting point is that the paper is attacking the person who was pushing the word "Spracklandus" to become an official snake genus. Now who is doing the real vandalism??? I don't know...
From the article:
Linnaeus's two-part species names, often Latin-based, consist of both a genus name and a species name, i.e. Homo sapiens.
Why Homo sapiens? The fact that they chose a species that includes white male christians should not go unchallenged. Very problematic. How convenient that they left out Homo erectus, a much more wholesome species.
From your quote, the 'Homo sapiens' is just an example to illustrate how the two-part species names would look like. You just pick and choose what you want to see to make a nonsensical comment.
Then again, the main characteristic of Homo sapiens is not derived from "white male christians" but rather wise-man (modern human) which covers a whole lot of different subspecies. On the other hand, Homo electus main characteristic is standing upright.
You just want to troll people and attempt to pull in racial political BS into the discussion. You are the problematic, not TFA.
Isn't Boston near New England?
Boston is a part of New England (not near)...
The catcher then gives the signs to the pitcher about what pitch to throw next. The catcher needs to know what the next pitch is so he can position accordingly to catch it. There are also signals to the defense about positioning, which can change from one pitch to the next.
So basically the catcher is incompetent and the pitcher is incapable of picking his own pitches?
Try watching cricket, a similar game in which the guy with the ball makes his own decision on how to deliver it. A fast bowler will choose from an in swinger, out swinger, reverse swing, seam, leg break, off break, yorker, bouncer, slow ball, on a length, full, on the leg side, on off stump, outside off.. all these options and more.
He also knows how the field is set and will bowl accordingly.
Why does baseball need every single fucking play directed by someone else?
You are comparing apple with orange. Baseball is NOT cricket. And it appears that you don't understand baseball at all if you think that the catcher is incompetent and pitcher is incapable of pitching. Baseball is about cooperative between pitcher and catcher. They must be in sync. If they could have telepathy, then there wouldn't be hand signals.
Cricket, on the other hand, is one side only. It is a completely different game strategy. If you can't distinguish between cricket and baseball, then you shouldn't make this kind of silly comment.
The only person I've known with a pacemaker was a girl who's heart rate would go astronomically high for no apparent reason. It only happened a few times a week and the pacemaker would kick in and bring it back down.
Other than during those events, the pacemaker didn't do anything.
That's not a pace maker. That is defibrillator. Don't be confused. Pace maker is to accelerate heart beat from too slow to normal. Defibrillator, on the other hand, is to slow down the heart beat from abnormal to normal range.
In Canada, if you buy a car, even finance it, the car is yours, you hold the title. However the lender has a lien on it which prevents you from selling it without their consent, and allows them to sue to recoup costs (usually the car) if the account goes into arrears.
I have no idea how remote disabling devices are even legal unless it was agreed to in the contract.
This is not the case. Please read TFA. The car was "lease" and then "bought out" (paid off). Then later on, the dealer attempted to extort $200 after the car was bought.
That lean means that you don't really own it yet. You can't dispose of it as you see fit, you can't modify it as you wish, etc. You can't even sell it without getting permission from the lien holder.
Yes, you own it even with a lien. However, the lien will legally stop selling process if you attempt to sell whatever property/thing that has a lien on because the lien is there to ensure that you WILL pay the money you owed. Thus, the lien has nothing to do with ownership. It is somewhat a collateral of the money you owed to the lien holder. Oh and yes, you can dispose/damage/destroy whatever property/item that has a lien on it (think of getting into an accident and it is total). However, you still owe the money to the lien holder whether or not you have the possession of the property/item.
Err correct my own grammar...
Leasing a car doesn't give any ownership to the person who signed the contract but rather the right to use it under some conditions. Buying a car, however, gives the buyer the ownership of the car except the car is put on a lien by a finance (whoever finance the car for the buyer), but the buyer still owns the car out right.
You literally argued the same thing as the guy you were trying to correct.
Not exactly. The guy just clarified that "leasing" and "buying" a car are 2 different processes. Leasing a car doesn't give any ownership to the buyer but rather the right to use it under some conditions. Buying a car, however, gives you the ownership of the car except the car is put on a lien by a finance (whoever finance the car for you), but you still own the car out right. The GP indicated his/her misunderstanding of the process in the 1st paragraph.
After all, just under half the country voted for a criminal, they should be audited for being criminals themselves based on their party affiliation.
Actually way less than half. You forgot how many turned out to vote (less than 60% of legitimate voters) and less than half of those turn-out voted for him.
Being audited requires production of huge amounts of paperwork
If you get audited, the first thing you should do is hire the best tax attorney that you can afford. Once you have legal representation, the IRS is required to deal directly with your tax lawyer, and can not contact you directly. Your attorney can cut way down on excessive demands for paperwork and documentation, which are mostly just fishing expeditions to intimidate naive taxpayers into agreeing to a "settlement" just to get the harassment to stop.
Of course, if you are poor, and can't afford a tax attorney, then you are screwed.
If you are being audited from your own individual income without owning a business, it should not be too difficult to prove the case. I once was audited and they claimed that I took a deduction which I was not qualified for. Of course, I was angry when I saw the letter because it is their fault not to double check what I claimed which was correct (and it should be simple). I had to submit a copied of some papers and a cover letter (explained my provided attachment for evidence). Then they cleared my case. It may take some times from you, but if you keep every thing when you file taxes, then it should not be a problem. If you don't have evidence (paper) to prove in the first place, don't put the number in when filing tax return, period.
My experience corresponds with GP; the majority of people who like to travel tend to be too limited in intelligence to even appreciate their immediate environment, yet use the whole "travel broadens the mind" to justify their trip to another continent.
In short, the majority of people are too stupid to even learn from their current environment, yet when they proclaim that travel will broaden their mind other stupid people agree with them.
My experience is both. I see stupid people like to travel. I see smart people like to travel. I see both stupid and smart people like to stay in place. Nothing is black and white or mutual exclusive.
Also, you need to define the word "smart" before you extend it to other thing else. What "smart" to me is someone who could make a right decision to any problems. The decision may not solve those problems but at least could ease the issue to somewhat much easier to be handled with later on. Furthermore, Smart != Intelligent but overlaps.
Reading comprehension failure by parkinglot777. How embarassing.
You are the one who failed reading comprehension. The statement alone wouldn't apply to my response. However, the AC replied to GP which implied (or generalized) that this (or any) topic on ./ is a fake news which could result in damaging the business (in this case, it is code42). I directly responded that it was the truth (and quote what the official site said).
You, on the other hand, are similar to the other AC who did NOT read the whole things but rather made your own assumption. And then hide behind AC so that you wouldn't be embarrassed by your own failure.
If it succeeded, we wouldn't know.
Right. But human nature usually urges them to brag or disclose to someone else. Still not easy to keep secret. So it is still rare...
What he needed was a trusted accomplice.
Someone he could trust to play it straight while collecting the winnings and be fair about dividing up the spoils.
Have your agent do his/her thing, collect your share and play out your exit strategy.
Retire to an island somewhere.
And historically, this scheme hasn't been working very well because of human greed. Whoever is willing to be accomplice, the person is greedy. When the person sees that much money in hand, the person wants it all -- human nature. Very rare to see this scheme succeed...
So that being said... the only people who would ever play this are people who are simply too stupid to figure out that that $5 a week they spend is really $260 a year or $5200 every 20 years which is a luxury cruise for two plus airfare when you retire. So, after 50 years of work, you can be guaranteed at least a little bit of the rich life... or you can pay the stupid tax and wonder why when you retire that you can't do those nice things.
Here is what I disagree with on this part. I understand why you want to call those who play lottery stupid because majority of them wasted their money on it. However, would you still call those who won "stupid" too even though they may not know the maths you explained? Your maths shows that the risk is very high, and it is correct. But why do people still play? Because if they think that the reward is high enough for the gamble (subjective feeling), then they will play. Would that be called stupid? I don't think so unless they sold their house or put all their retirement funds on lottery and lost.
Theoretically, it is stupid to play unless you are on the winning side (which is very slim). However, I would call those who won stupid if they don't know how to manage the reward and spend it all without saving for their own retirement.
Maybe you could try this site for price comparison. Or maybe you could check this one for another overall comparison. To me, price of goods only doesn't mean anything much if it doesn't affect the local "cost of living".
... Plus a lot of these expenses are paid up front by the lawyers with no guarantee of being reimbursed later.
That's why lawyers/law firms will assess the success of any class law suit case before they act. If they don't see a chance or the reward is not worth doing, then they won't accept to do the job...
Who do you think created the vulnerability in the first place?
But you are right, I prefer to blame the process, not the people [wikiquote.org]. That implies blaming the big company before the individual.
Now you oversimplify/generalize the situation. The case should NOT be applied with what you are saying at all because there are other actions involved, and they aren't something you can overlook.
You are referring to the theory of justice that punishment is a deterrence (which, by the way, doesn't seem to have worked in this case). Are you sure that throwing people in jail is a good way to keep people out of jail?
No, this is NOT a theory but rather a simple psychology and real human behavior (don't you know?). Again, you kept saying jailing people. You are too stubborn to think out of the box. Punishment is NOT ONLY jail. There are many other ways and I already suggested one. However, some people could come to their sense when they are put in jail because they have common sense. Though, some don't.
I hate big companies because I want them to take responsibility for their mistakes and stop shifting their costs onto taxpayers?
See? You let your hatred blind you from reasoning and logic. Whatever cost them is your joyful. You need to let go your hatred and start using reasons to judge rather than your emotion. Again, let me try to put this on the table again. JAILING is NOT the ONLY WAY of PUNISHMENT.
To me, the mistakes began long before that. But maybe it's just me because I'm an engineer and I prefer to proactively find and fix the root cause of a problem rather than try to reactively clean up the mess it makes. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
I knew that the mistake began before that and I didn't deny it. However, the "wrong doing" is NOT a mistake. A wrong doing is done with an intention. A mistake is done without intent. This case contains 2 different parts of issues. Also, you will NEVER prevent every mistake from what you are doing. Your quote has nothing to do with this case. It is rather a suggestion of what (everyone) should be doing. It does NOT offer a solution if a mistake happens. If you want to quote it on any case like this, you would become a SJW, but I don't want anyone including you to be that kind of a person.
What is right should be acknowledge, and what is wrong should be punished. Simply throw all the blames to one side when it is clearly both have done wrong is extreme. An extreme solution often times (if not every time) never solves any issue but rather creates issues of the other extreme side ON TOP of the current issue. I know that I will not be able to convince you to move toward the center because that what extremists are (for both sides). I just want other readers to see my point if they ever come across these posts.
Makes you wonder how much damage could be done to a company's business by an unscrupulous Fake News post here on /. Would /. be legally liable? Hypothetically, of course.
What is fake news? You didn't even go to the link and make an assumption that the link is fake news???
Effective August 22, 2017, Code42 will no longer offer new – or renew – CrashPlan for Home subscriptions, and we will begin to sunset the product over several months. CrashPlan for Home will no longer be available for use starting October 23, 2018.
That's what on their official website (crashplan.com). In other words, those who have their plan can still use but will not be able to renew. Those who wants to get a new plan will not be able to get. Where is fake news you are talking about here?
Agree. And also blogger nowadays intend to misuse the word "hacker" because the word sounds more interesting to readers.
In a growing number of online attacks, hackers have been calling up Verizon, T-Mobile U.S., Sprint and AT&T and asking them to transfer control of a victim’s phone number to a device under the control of the hackers.
The above sentences from TFA is describing what you should call "social engineering" instead of hacking.