Your argument does not change anything about the flaw in Valve's password reset system. The system should be a fool proof. If it is not a fool proof, then Valve should have made it clear what should be used and what not. If Valve didn't mention anything about it, then it is still Valve's fault regardless how dumb users are.
Rather than abuse, either of those approaches invites more funding of the patent office - so they can do a proper job. Possibly a fee on patent applications - that would keep a lot of the silly ones out - thus reducing the workload.
How about eliminating software patents instead? Current flooding patent applications are software patents. Besides, it gets more and more ridiculous that most of patents are covering algorithm instead of implementation due to vague (catch-all) description of implementation. If they forbid software patents, there shouldn't be a backlog, patent office has more time to investigate other patents, and no need more funding...
Your argument amounts to "we shouldn't be allowed to have nice things that might be able to be abused, whether or not they're being abused"...
You oversimplify the situation. You also bias toward what they do by using the word "nice things" in place. I somewhat understand it is "nice" for you because you are a part of the situation. However, this does not mean there is no consequence or is nice to others.
A good example has already stated by jbmartin6 about Pandora (music service). Your argument toward the example is, however, unreasonable. You said that just telling the provider what you prefer to use, then the provider will lower the cost for you. Hmm... What jbmartin6 mentioned was about individual perspective, not a business perspective. It is about free cost when streaming via Pandora. Are you telling me that the provider would also give free streaming for other music services if you tell them you (as an individual) prefer those services better?
You seem to argue based on your current satisfaction. You need to look at any issue at a bigger picture. The answer is yes, we SHOULD NOT allow things that can be abused in the future even though they may look nice to you now. Why would you allow them to happen if you already see or know that there can be a problems/abuses/issues in the future? Could you tell me why? A short-term satisfaction, and being screwed later?
That's why prevention is preferred over looking for a solution especially when you already know what issues/problems would happen if allowed.
QUIT TRYING TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE ALL YOUR ISSUES - THIS STORY IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!
So let me ask you this. Who is going to do if not government involved? Let corporations make their own decision and you just keep praying that they won't screw you for their own benefit?
Any rules have work around. It just happened that corporations have found a way to work around the rules. It is expected later or sooner. Sadly, they found it so early. Now what FCC could do is either to make it a precedence (court ruling) or tighten the rules up. Not sure which one is better...
What? East Asia??? I didn't realize that the sun rises in Iran BEFORE India (around middle Asia)??? If you are talking about "Middle East," then it is a whole different story.
This is what can happen when you use Other People's Code.
The issue here is NOT about using other people's code, but it is from linking source that is on the Internet. It seems to be popular nowadays. If all codes are local, then there should not be a problem of this type. However, directly linking your work with others on the Internet would have this kind of issue. In other words, if something happen with the source you are linking, your page/app would fail and you can't simply fix it for them (unless you have a copied of their code in your local storage).
The script shouldn't use while loop at all. Instead, it could be replaced with a simple for loop instead because the loop number is defined.
for (var i=0; i<(len-str.length); i++) {... }
Back to the topic, I think the word kik is a trademark - http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/... - and it is still enforcible. If you look at the Good and Services, it may be the reason why the developer should not use the name or he could be sued...
So your rampant deflation is at most deflated 3 times. And it will not happen overnight either.
gp post
When there's not enough money supply to service incomes and day to day transactions the entire economy of labor shuts down, potentially overnight.
Not sure you read the GP correctly. If what you said is about deflation happening overnight, then the GP said the economy of labor shuts down overnight. See the differences?
You can call Trump a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.
You do not succeed in businesses without having some smarts.
Not exactly true. Many smart people do not succeed in businesses or lives. Some dumb people do succeed in live (but may not in business). You don't need to be smart, just average. Most of the time, you need to be at the right place at the right time (luck may be?).
There is potential problem with logic here. Why didn't they put explosives _before_ the rules were introduced. Why would they start doing it only _after_? Second thing is that trying to hit a flying aircraft with drone will take not hours, it'll take years and generations.
Actually, your logic has more potential flaws. First, all ideas may or may not need to come out at the same time an invention appears. Besides, some people could have thought about the idea already but do not want to mention or talk about (afraid of Striensand effect), but then later on some wackos finally have a thought about it (and do it).
Second, why are you thinking that a wacko would target only a flying aircraft with drone? It doesn't make sense at all. However, a dangerous application can easily be used to ground targets (non-moving). It does not need years or generations to develop that.
A 10% difference is one more digit of precision, which isn't warranted here.
Depends on what you are talking about. In other words, sometimes the ACTUAL NUMBER is MORE important that the RATIO, and vice versa. Also, for some people, actual number is more important than ratio, and vice versa. In this case, to me, 28 feet are quite significant in distance compared to 300 feet.
Somebody said it had a range of about 100 m. Somebody else converted it to feet, without any thought that this was an approximate measurement. About 100 m is about 300 feet, or maybe about 350 feet, but it is not 328 feet.
Have to remove mod point and want to point out something...
Approximation is nice, but you are a bit off in number. What you said is that 1 yard is approximately equal to 1 meter. That's about 10% off. 1 meter is longer than 1 yard. Now let's see. 1 yard is 3 feet. 1 foot is 12 inches. 1 inch is around 2.54 cm. So 100 meter would be around 328 feet ((10000/2.54) / 12).
TFA said it is about 100m which is already an approximation. If you approximate an approximation, it could lead to something difference (tend to be worse than better). In this case, 28 feet (~10%) to me is quite different...
Hmm... I don't know why you are showing spending year for 2013 when you are trying to counter Iraq war spending (2003~2011) from GP? Besides, if you want to give data, you should give a link to real sources, not an article which may contain bias comments (a.org domain does not mean it is neutral). One source link could be https://www.cbo.gov/publicatio... , and readers should be able to calculate percentage by themselves.
Also, most people who are receiving social security had done their share (paid into the system) when they were younger. They are now receiving what they paid into. I failed to see that it is a welfare program for these people. Of course, there are those who abuse/cheat the system, but again I failed to see that these people are actually playing a big part of the whole program. Thus, it is unfair to compare the spending with the defense budget.
Seems like even in that regards they're barely valid?
If you think a little bit about what it said in TFA, you should know that IBM contacted Groupon in 2011. Even though the patent '967 has been expired since August 17, 2015 (iffy rule for this patent -- 17-year from issued date [08-18-1998] v. 20-year from filing date [11-26-1993]), it was still in effect when IBM attempted to collect loyalty from Groupon back then.
If they fuck up really bad do they still get the golden parachute?
You are confusing with big corporation CEOs v. those with one or a few employee company calling themselves CEOs... That's why the GP is correct about grouping business into lower, medium, and upper classes in order to have a creditable comparison. TFA comparison is crap...
If you are seeing and understanding the issue from the point I stated, you will understand why QUALITY is IRRELEVANT and is NOT a concerned when one is buying a product. Also per your statement, it means that buyers should put their trust on the brand when they spend more than they can afford on the brand's products. Should it really be the way to go in current American consumer culture?
Seriously, why do (American) people think that those who can't afford should still spend more than they can afford anyway because they believe (or hope) that the money will be well worthwhile in a long run. Think about it... For example, a person can afford only $200 right now. A PC (3-5 years lifetime product) costs $200 and a Mac (10-12 years lifetime product) costs $500. What make you think that the person would buy a Mac? In theory, yes Mac would be worth more for money (per your statement), but that has NOTHING to do with AFFORDABILITY.
Not sure where I said PCs are made like crap compared to Macs??? I simply said Macs products are very expensive compared to PCs, and that is the issue for many people. The GP suggested to switch from PC to Mac, but I don't believe it is a good solution.
Non-technical users should use a Mac, as it simply works.
Well, the problem is that the cost to buy (including maintenance) a Mac is a lot more expensive than to buy a PC... $500 may be little to you, but it could be a much higher value to many others...
As far as I'm concerned the true motive is to force larger transactions to use electronic transfers, allowing the government to track more transactions.
This is purely a push for more tracking. The government wants ALL your transactions to be electronic so that you cannot ever have a private monetary transaction.
I think you are looking at the situation from one side -- anti-government. If you really think about it, big businesses or big transactions nowadays are done via electronic. Nobody is carrying a suitcase with tons of cash inside to pay off something unless there is something fishy about the transaction. And then, if you really think further, often times banks get transaction fees; besides, they do not need physical labor to count the money. Everything is in digital format. It is cheaper in a long run and easier to maintain (not talking about security). So even government wants to track transactions, banks also get benefit from it.
TFA contains more info links, but by itself the content looks more of assumption/implication. I can't find anything from TFA showing the evidence that there is a backdoor but rather said it (see below)...
Tim Cook protests that Apple is being asked to create “a new version of the iPhone operating system.” This glib talking point distracts attention from the reality that there’s essentially a backdoor on every new iPhone that ships around the world: the ability to load and execute modified firmware without user intervention.
Ostensibly software patches were intended to fix bugs. But they can just as easily install code that compromises sensitive data. I repeat: without user intervention. Apple isn’t alone in this regard. Has anyone noticed that the auto-update feature deployed with certain versions of Windows 10 is impossible to turn off using existing user controls?
After December’s San Bernardino attack, Apple worked with the F.B.I. to gather data that had been backed up to the cloud from a work iPhone issued to one of the assailants, according to court filings. When investigators also wanted unspecified information on the phone that had not been backed up, the judge this week granted the order requiring Apple to create a special tool to help investigators more easily crack the phone’s passcode and get into the device.
Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The result was the letter that Mr. Cook signed on Tuesday, where he argued that it set a “dangerous precedent” for a company to be forced to build tools for the government that weaken security.
Anyway, this does not mean I trust Apple that they don't have backdoor on their device, but I would rather see an evidence or some research results that point out exactly what it is.
If you had read the original blog post, you'd know that she did try, and she found out that all of her coworkers were living with their parents because they couldn't afford rent even when splitting it.
She did try with co-workers, but that does not mean she has to split the rent with only co-workers. In other words, she could split the rent with someone else if she really try harder. Also, no where in her letter mentioned about how much she earned. The only thing she mentioned was the total amount left after taxes and whatever being withheld...
Overall condition of her from TFA, I could understand that her problems mostly came from herself. Her own decision and ambitious got her into the position she is in right now. Well, I do not expect a mid 20s person would always make the right decision and understand the reality better. There is nothing wrong with bad decision making or high ambitious. My problem is that she seems to take things for grants and expect things to be what she has been dreaming of. When the reality kicks in, she starts blaming on everyone else...
When she made a complaint about putting debt onto her credit card, it was her decision to do so because she was dreaming that she would earn big money from working for a big corporation right after graduated from college with English major. That's already a mistake.
I left college, having majored in English literature, with a dream to work in media. It was either that or go to law school. Or become a teacher. But I didn’t want to become a cliche or drown in student loans, see...
Then she assumed that the position she was accepted would be in media. I am guessing that she did not question the person who interviewed her what job description or position she is going to be working in. It could be because she is new to the market. As a result, she might have assumed that she would be working in media. Another mistake...
Then she made a complaint about health benefit she got. To me, getting health benefit with $20 co-pay is quite a good deal. No one should think about health benefit the way she does. Health benefit is NOT a grocery shopping that one would EXPECT and USE it often. It is a cushion for unexpected circumstances. Making a complaint about needing to spend $20 each visit is a bit too much in my opinion because the complaint implies that she wants to keep seeing a doctor all the time.
One example she gave about she got stuck in the east bay because her credit card kept getting declined, I have no idea why would this be other people's problem? Another example about a situation when her manager gave her a suggestion to intentionally drive through FastTrak and get a $35 ticket in order to get to work is not anyone else fault but her manager and herself. To me, her examples are just her writing style to add irrelevant info in order to beg for sympathy from readers.
Then she went on about her own mistake that she gave out over $600 to customers during her early work (so called training in her meaning). And then 3 months later, she could do a lot better by giving out only $15 in 3 months. Does this mean she should get a reward of $600 for doing her work? It is the company money, not hers that was given out. However, she feels that it should be hers. Not that I said the company is good in the sense of not paying customers to appeace their issues, but I am saying that she is expecting a reward for doing her work right.
In one month, I gave out over $600 to customers for a variety of issues. Now, since getting more training, I’ve given out about $15 in the past three months because I’ve been able to de-escalate messed up situations using just my customer service skills.... You know what I could do with $600 extra a month? For starters, I probably wouldn’t have to take money from Marcus at CVS just to get to work.
There are a lot more issues with her letter that show her envious/je
A computer at work contains a software which uses thermo printer driver from the software's vendor (not from the printer manufacturer). The computer was upgraded from Win7 to Win10 about a week ago. All of the sudden, whatever printed out from the printer didn't fit the paper it had been using. The symptom was similar to what I encountered before -- the driver is from its manufacturer. After replacing the printer driver with the old one from the vendor, it worked fine again... So, watch out that Win10 may overwrite your driver with its default if the driver is on their default driver list...
And even when she didn't have a choice, that still doesn't negate the inherent rights of the HUMAN she is carrying.
I would love you to be the "She" in the sentence you said, and then I would like to hear your opinion again. Also, your argument said the so called "human" she is carrying can negate her own inherent rights???
The issue is not about whether breach of personal info would harm individuals whose info belong to, it is how much DAMAGE it is. The judge is correct in the sense that the breach could harm individuals in the future. Yes, a alw suite should be approved to move on. However, no one (and I believe by laws) can simply place a damage value on to this kind of harm. Thus, if there is no damage occurred (someone used the info for something that cause monetary damage) before or during the law suite, it is unlikely that victims would be awarded any money...
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument does not change anything about the flaw in Valve's password reset system. The system should be a fool proof. If it is not a fool proof, then Valve should have made it clear what should be used and what not. If Valve didn't mention anything about it, then it is still Valve's fault regardless how dumb users are.
Rather than abuse, either of those approaches invites more funding of the patent office - so they can do a proper job. Possibly a fee on patent applications - that would keep a lot of the silly ones out - thus reducing the workload.
How about eliminating software patents instead? Current flooding patent applications are software patents. Besides, it gets more and more ridiculous that most of patents are covering algorithm instead of implementation due to vague (catch-all) description of implementation. If they forbid software patents, there shouldn't be a backlog, patent office has more time to investigate other patents, and no need more funding...
Your argument amounts to "we shouldn't be allowed to have nice things that might be able to be abused, whether or not they're being abused"...
You oversimplify the situation. You also bias toward what they do by using the word "nice things" in place. I somewhat understand it is "nice" for you because you are a part of the situation. However, this does not mean there is no consequence or is nice to others.
A good example has already stated by jbmartin6 about Pandora (music service). Your argument toward the example is, however, unreasonable. You said that just telling the provider what you prefer to use, then the provider will lower the cost for you. Hmm... What jbmartin6 mentioned was about individual perspective, not a business perspective. It is about free cost when streaming via Pandora. Are you telling me that the provider would also give free streaming for other music services if you tell them you (as an individual) prefer those services better?
You seem to argue based on your current satisfaction. You need to look at any issue at a bigger picture. The answer is yes, we SHOULD NOT allow things that can be abused in the future even though they may look nice to you now. Why would you allow them to happen if you already see or know that there can be a problems/abuses/issues in the future? Could you tell me why? A short-term satisfaction, and being screwed later?
That's why prevention is preferred over looking for a solution especially when you already know what issues/problems would happen if allowed.
QUIT TRYING TO GET THE GOVERNMENT TO SOLVE ALL YOUR ISSUES - THIS STORY IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS!
So let me ask you this. Who is going to do if not government involved? Let corporations make their own decision and you just keep praying that they won't screw you for their own benefit?
Any rules have work around. It just happened that corporations have found a way to work around the rules. It is expected later or sooner. Sadly, they found it so early. Now what FCC could do is either to make it a precedence (court ruling) or tighten the rules up. Not sure which one is better...
Iran = EastAsia
What? East Asia??? I didn't realize that the sun rises in Iran BEFORE India (around middle Asia)??? If you are talking about "Middle East," then it is a whole different story.
This is what can happen when you use Other People's Code.
The issue here is NOT about using other people's code, but it is from linking source that is on the Internet. It seems to be popular nowadays. If all codes are local, then there should not be a problem of this type. However, directly linking your work with others on the Internet would have this kind of issue. In other words, if something happen with the source you are linking, your page/app would fail and you can't simply fix it for them (unless you have a copied of their code in your local storage).
The script shouldn't use while loop at all. Instead, it could be replaced with a simple for loop instead because the loop number is defined.
for (var i=0; i<(len-str.length); i++) { ... }
Back to the topic, I think the word kik is a trademark - http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/... - and it is still enforcible. If you look at the Good and Services, it may be the reason why the developer should not use the name or he could be sued...
parent post
So your rampant deflation is at most deflated 3 times. And it will not happen overnight either.
gp post
When there's not enough money supply to service incomes and day to day transactions the entire economy of labor shuts down, potentially overnight.
Not sure you read the GP correctly. If what you said is about deflation happening overnight, then the GP said the economy of labor shuts down overnight. See the differences?
You can call Trump a lot of things, but dumb is not one of them.
You do not succeed in businesses without having some smarts.
Not exactly true. Many smart people do not succeed in businesses or lives. Some dumb people do succeed in live (but may not in business). You don't need to be smart, just average. Most of the time, you need to be at the right place at the right time (luck may be?).
There is potential problem with logic here. Why didn't they put explosives _before_ the rules were introduced. Why would they start doing it only _after_? Second thing is that trying to hit a flying aircraft with drone will take not hours, it'll take years and generations.
Actually, your logic has more potential flaws. First, all ideas may or may not need to come out at the same time an invention appears. Besides, some people could have thought about the idea already but do not want to mention or talk about (afraid of Striensand effect), but then later on some wackos finally have a thought about it (and do it).
Second, why are you thinking that a wacko would target only a flying aircraft with drone? It doesn't make sense at all. However, a dangerous application can easily be used to ground targets (non-moving). It does not need years or generations to develop that.
If bitcoin is only being horded then where are all the transactions coming from?
Keep taking out of one of your wallets and put it back into another wallet of yours? :-P
A 10% difference is one more digit of precision, which isn't warranted here.
Depends on what you are talking about. In other words, sometimes the ACTUAL NUMBER is MORE important that the RATIO, and vice versa. Also, for some people, actual number is more important than ratio, and vice versa. In this case, to me, 28 feet are quite significant in distance compared to 300 feet.
Somebody said it had a range of about 100 m. Somebody else converted it to feet, without any thought that this was an approximate measurement. About 100 m is about 300 feet, or maybe about 350 feet, but it is not 328 feet.
Have to remove mod point and want to point out something...
Approximation is nice, but you are a bit off in number. What you said is that 1 yard is approximately equal to 1 meter. That's about 10% off. 1 meter is longer than 1 yard. Now let's see. 1 yard is 3 feet. 1 foot is 12 inches. 1 inch is around 2.54 cm. So 100 meter would be around 328 feet ((10000/2.54) / 12).
TFA said it is about 100m which is already an approximation. If you approximate an approximation, it could lead to something difference (tend to be worse than better). In this case, 28 feet (~10%) to me is quite different...
Hmm... I don't know why you are showing spending year for 2013 when you are trying to counter Iraq war spending (2003~2011) from GP? Besides, if you want to give data, you should give a link to real sources, not an article which may contain bias comments (a .org domain does not mean it is neutral). One source link could be https://www.cbo.gov/publicatio... , and readers should be able to calculate percentage by themselves.
Also, most people who are receiving social security had done their share (paid into the system) when they were younger. They are now receiving what they paid into. I failed to see that it is a welfare program for these people. Of course, there are those who abuse/cheat the system, but again I failed to see that these people are actually playing a big part of the whole program. Thus, it is unfair to compare the spending with the defense budget.
Seems like even in that regards they're barely valid?
If you think a little bit about what it said in TFA, you should know that IBM contacted Groupon in 2011. Even though the patent '967 has been expired since August 17, 2015 (iffy rule for this patent -- 17-year from issued date [08-18-1998] v. 20-year from filing date [11-26-1993]), it was still in effect when IBM attempted to collect loyalty from Groupon back then.
If they fuck up really bad do they still get the golden parachute?
You are confusing with big corporation CEOs v. those with one or a few employee company calling themselves CEOs... That's why the GP is correct about grouping business into lower, medium, and upper classes in order to have a creditable comparison. TFA comparison is crap...
If you are seeing and understanding the issue from the point I stated, you will understand why QUALITY is IRRELEVANT and is NOT a concerned when one is buying a product. Also per your statement, it means that buyers should put their trust on the brand when they spend more than they can afford on the brand's products. Should it really be the way to go in current American consumer culture?
Seriously, why do (American) people think that those who can't afford should still spend more than they can afford anyway because they believe (or hope) that the money will be well worthwhile in a long run. Think about it... For example, a person can afford only $200 right now. A PC (3-5 years lifetime product) costs $200 and a Mac (10-12 years lifetime product) costs $500. What make you think that the person would buy a Mac? In theory, yes Mac would be worth more for money (per your statement), but that has NOTHING to do with AFFORDABILITY.
Not sure where I said PCs are made like crap compared to Macs??? I simply said Macs products are very expensive compared to PCs, and that is the issue for many people. The GP suggested to switch from PC to Mac, but I don't believe it is a good solution.
Non-technical users should use a Mac, as it simply works.
Well, the problem is that the cost to buy (including maintenance) a Mac is a lot more expensive than to buy a PC... $500 may be little to you, but it could be a much higher value to many others...
As far as I'm concerned the true motive is to force larger transactions to use electronic transfers, allowing the government to track more transactions.
This is purely a push for more tracking. The government wants ALL your transactions to be electronic so that you cannot ever have a private monetary transaction.
I think you are looking at the situation from one side -- anti-government. If you really think about it, big businesses or big transactions nowadays are done via electronic. Nobody is carrying a suitcase with tons of cash inside to pay off something unless there is something fishy about the transaction. And then, if you really think further, often times banks get transaction fees; besides, they do not need physical labor to count the money. Everything is in digital format. It is cheaper in a long run and easier to maintain (not talking about security). So even government wants to track transactions, banks also get benefit from it.
TFA contains more info links, but by itself the content looks more of assumption/implication. I can't find anything from TFA showing the evidence that there is a backdoor but rather said it (see below)...
Tim Cook protests that Apple is being asked to create “a new version of the iPhone operating system.” This glib talking point distracts attention from the reality that there’s essentially a backdoor on every new iPhone that ships around the world: the ability to load and execute modified firmware without user intervention.
Ostensibly software patches were intended to fix bugs. But they can just as easily install code that compromises sensitive data. I repeat: without user intervention. Apple isn’t alone in this regard. Has anyone noticed that the auto-update feature deployed with certain versions of Windows 10 is impossible to turn off using existing user controls?
Now, to answer your question about FBI, you would get the answer http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02... by following a link on TFA page.
After December’s San Bernardino attack, Apple worked with the F.B.I. to gather data that had been backed up to the cloud from a work iPhone issued to one of the assailants, according to court filings. When investigators also wanted unspecified information on the phone that had not been backed up, the judge this week granted the order requiring Apple to create a special tool to help investigators more easily crack the phone’s passcode and get into the device.
Apple had asked the F.B.I. to issue its application for the tool under seal. But the government made it public, prompting Mr. Cook to go into bunker mode to draft a response, according to people privy to the discussions, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The result was the letter that Mr. Cook signed on Tuesday, where he argued that it set a “dangerous precedent” for a company to be forced to build tools for the government that weaken security.
Anyway, this does not mean I trust Apple that they don't have backdoor on their device, but I would rather see an evidence or some research results that point out exactly what it is.
If you had read the original blog post, you'd know that she did try, and she found out that all of her coworkers were living with their parents because they couldn't afford rent even when splitting it.
She did try with co-workers, but that does not mean she has to split the rent with only co-workers. In other words, she could split the rent with someone else if she really try harder. Also, no where in her letter mentioned about how much she earned. The only thing she mentioned was the total amount left after taxes and whatever being withheld...
Overall condition of her from TFA, I could understand that her problems mostly came from herself. Her own decision and ambitious got her into the position she is in right now. Well, I do not expect a mid 20s person would always make the right decision and understand the reality better. There is nothing wrong with bad decision making or high ambitious. My problem is that she seems to take things for grants and expect things to be what she has been dreaming of. When the reality kicks in, she starts blaming on everyone else...
When she made a complaint about putting debt onto her credit card, it was her decision to do so because she was dreaming that she would earn big money from working for a big corporation right after graduated from college with English major. That's already a mistake.
I left college, having majored in English literature, with a dream to work in media. It was either that or go to law school. Or become a teacher. But I didn’t want to become a cliche or drown in student loans, see...
Then she assumed that the position she was accepted would be in media. I am guessing that she did not question the person who interviewed her what job description or position she is going to be working in. It could be because she is new to the market. As a result, she might have assumed that she would be working in media. Another mistake...
Then she made a complaint about health benefit she got. To me, getting health benefit with $20 co-pay is quite a good deal. No one should think about health benefit the way she does. Health benefit is NOT a grocery shopping that one would EXPECT and USE it often. It is a cushion for unexpected circumstances. Making a complaint about needing to spend $20 each visit is a bit too much in my opinion because the complaint implies that she wants to keep seeing a doctor all the time.
One example she gave about she got stuck in the east bay because her credit card kept getting declined, I have no idea why would this be other people's problem? Another example about a situation when her manager gave her a suggestion to intentionally drive through FastTrak and get a $35 ticket in order to get to work is not anyone else fault but her manager and herself. To me, her examples are just her writing style to add irrelevant info in order to beg for sympathy from readers.
Then she went on about her own mistake that she gave out over $600 to customers during her early work (so called training in her meaning). And then 3 months later, she could do a lot better by giving out only $15 in 3 months. Does this mean she should get a reward of $600 for doing her work? It is the company money, not hers that was given out. However, she feels that it should be hers. Not that I said the company is good in the sense of not paying customers to appeace their issues, but I am saying that she is expecting a reward for doing her work right.
In one month, I gave out over $600 to customers for a variety of issues. Now, since getting more training, I’ve given out about $15 in the past three months because I’ve been able to de-escalate messed up situations using just my customer service skills. ... You know what I could do with $600 extra a month? For starters, I probably wouldn’t have to take money from Marcus at CVS just to get to work.
There are a lot more issues with her letter that show her envious/je
A computer at work contains a software which uses thermo printer driver from the software's vendor (not from the printer manufacturer). The computer was upgraded from Win7 to Win10 about a week ago. All of the sudden, whatever printed out from the printer didn't fit the paper it had been using. The symptom was similar to what I encountered before -- the driver is from its manufacturer. After replacing the printer driver with the old one from the vendor, it worked fine again... So, watch out that Win10 may overwrite your driver with its default if the driver is on their default driver list...
And even when she didn't have a choice, that still doesn't negate the inherent rights of the HUMAN she is carrying.
I would love you to be the "She" in the sentence you said, and then I would like to hear your opinion again. Also, your argument said the so called "human" she is carrying can negate her own inherent rights???
The issue is not about whether breach of personal info would harm individuals whose info belong to, it is how much DAMAGE it is. The judge is correct in the sense that the breach could harm individuals in the future. Yes, a alw suite should be approved to move on. However, no one (and I believe by laws) can simply place a damage value on to this kind of harm. Thus, if there is no damage occurred (someone used the info for something that cause monetary damage) before or during the law suite, it is unlikely that victims would be awarded any money...