It bugs me that they called themselves the "Security Innovation Center". Those of us in security have consistently advocated for the need to be able to work on devices in order to secure them. Most recently the Obama administration tried to push through regulations requiring manufacturers to "prevent the installation of OpenWRT and similar third-party firmware" on routers. We successfully argued that preventing firmware upgrades often prevents security fixes.
These jack asses do NOT represent security anything.
As an AC said, the big benefit to GitHub is collaboration. Heck even if you don't have other developers, sometimes *users* can benefit from seeing changes, such as when deciding whether or not to install a new version, or if a recent change might explain some odd behavior they are seeing.
When there is more than one developer, GitHub largely provides the best of both worlds between centralized and de-centralized development. In Git, each clone of the repo is complete and you can work completely offline. There is no "master server" you have to use. I could pull code onto my laptop from your laptop. On the other hand, because your laptop may be offline at any given time, it's convenient to have the GitHub copy as a de-facto sharing point where everyone pushes code to and everyone can pull from at any time.
GitHub also provides various minor interface functions that make the workflow smoother. You can use Git without GitHub, but GitHub makes it more convenient with an easy interface to comment on pull requests, set up policy regarding if code review is required before merging, etc.
> If a VoIP call comes in to an emergency dispatcher with any "someone is trying to be tricky" indicator, that is a strong hint that it's a hoax
Such indicators are not reliable, and not always present, but there ARE indicators that could be used to *sometimes* suggest that something suspicious *might* be happening. For example, I have a list of virtually every open proxy used by hackers. Not all suspicious traffic comes through an open proxy, and not all traffic from open proxies is illegitimate, but it's an indicator that it may be suspicious. We took fifteen years building up our methods and database, so it's not trivial.
>. Maybe the company or service that connected the VoIP call to the emergency dispatcher should face fines if they cannot accurately identify the caller in the event of a hoax.
You can't do that without imposing a police state (and having serious problems when someone wants to call 911 from anywhere but their house.) In the US, we can't even expect people to show ID in order to VOTE, much less to call 911, so that's a total non-starter.
The Media Access Control (MAC) address isn't visible once it's an IP packet being routed over the internet. The "media" in "media access control" is the coaxial cable, for a cable modem. As soon as it hits the first router and transitions from coax to fiber or cat6 that's a new medium, and a new MAC. In other words, MAC is a layer 2 address.
> If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy
Well that is indeed how IP works. You can't reliably distinguish the location if the person has made an effort to mislead. The most popular geoip service, Max mind, claims 90 percent accuracy when nobody is trying to be tricky. That's their marketing claim for their own service; the real number is probably closer to 80 percent when no proxies are involved.
I had an idea for how to make a quite accurate geoip service, but nobody has done it yet. Maybe I should call the one company best positioned to do it using my method. It would save them money to have good geoip data, and they happen to be in a position to collect fairly reliable data.
If they aren't using proxies or anything you can fairly reliably figure out what COUNTRY they are in. As soon as it goes through a SOCKS proxy, the connection to the destination is literally coming from the proxy, so any geoip will give the location of the proxy.
No proxy is needed for geoip services such as Vonage. I've moved maybe six times since I signed up for Vonage and they know may current address only based on what I type in to their web page. How else would they know when I move? I've taken my Vonage box with me on a week-long vacation once. They have no way of knowing where I am.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. The NRA has a very specific purpose. Well actually there are two NRA groups, each with a specific purpose. One does gun-related safety training and such, the other defends the second amendment in the political arena. Neither has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations related to things around principles of network neutrality. It's not what they were created and funded to do.
Intentionally, knowingly, negligently, and recklessly are all key terms in law, all very well defined and they all mean different things.
If a law is supposed to mean "intentionally", they say "intentionally". "Knowingly" is distinctly different term, with a very different well-defined meaning. Knowingly means exactly what it sounds like - the person knew what was going on. "Intentionally" would mean they tried to make it happen. Reckless means with complete disregard for whether it happens, and negligent means without due care. The lowest levels, then, are "knowingly" and "negligently". "Intentionally" is the highest.
As an example, there are two laws related to the handling of classified information. Under a federal law called 18 S 1924, if someone with a security clearance KNOWINGLY moves classified information to an unapproved, unsecured place, that's a crime with a penalty of up to five years in prison. Separately, it's unlawful to *negligently* handle classified information, to not be careful with it. You have a legal duty to be *careful* that you don't put classified information in an unsecured place. This is called "Negligent Discharge of Classified Information". If someone is "careless" as to whether they allow classified information get away from secured systems that's "Negligent Discharge". If they KNOW they're removing it to an unsecured place, that's the longer prison sentence.
Once upon a time close to 50â... of adult sites which had logins used my login system I designed. These days it's probably down to 20â... or so, but still a lot of sites. What exactly would you like to know?
Bottom line is this - sites are attacked all day every day.
Restricting by IP range is a great idea - as long as you'll still have a way in when your ISP suddenly gives you a completely different range.
Also, in theory, attackers could try all ports, so it doesn't matter which port you use. In the real world, most attackers use the standard ports, so choosing a random port below 1024 greatly reduces the number of attacks. That doesn't work against theoretical attackers, but it works against most real ones.
If what was purchased was just a piece of paper, it's worthless. Disney would have no obligation to trade a ransom piece of paper for a movie. I'm pretty sure that piece of paper is a key used to identify and retrieve the purchase, which is the right to legally download and watch the movie.
Anyone can download the movie, of course, but it's illegal to do so unless you have the license. The paper holds a code which identifies a license. If it DOESN'T represent a license, it's worthless.
> If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds.
A soda machine advertises "20 oz bottle, $1" and has a button labeled "Coca-Cola". Clearly the machine owner is offering to sell you a 20oz Coke for $1. You put in your dollar and press the Coca-Cola button. You've accepted the offer. If the Coke isn't delivered, the seller has breached the contract of sale because the meeting of the minds, the agreement, is a Coke for a dollar. They can't just keep your money and say "he put the money in of his own free will, there was no agreement". Agreements can happen without extended discussion, and very often do.
I can't just decide that I own your computer. I can buy it only if you agree to sell it to me. I also can't unilaterally decide that you have bought my old junked car, and you owe me $500 for it. Both buyer and seller must agree in order for a sale to occur. An agreement, followed by an exchange (of goods, money, and/or services) has a special term in law. Agreements backed by an exchange are called "contracts".
Contracts by minors are generally voidable - they can undo them. Which means if you sell something to a minor, they can return the item to the store and get there money back. That doesn't mean the contract doesn't exist, and there is a difference between voidable and void. It's a perfectly valid, enforceable contract unless and until the minor voids it. Specifically, that means the minor can enforce the contract against the adult.
There are certain exceptions. One of the most important is a contract for necessities (food etc). This clause is so that people aren't afraid to sell necessities to minors who need them. Another "exception" is that a minor can petition the court to make a contract non-voidable. This can be used with high-dollar contracts such as Selena Gomez's first record contract. The court looks at the contract to ensure it's fair, then endorses the contract to make it binding.
You can't sell what isn't yours to sell. The store can't sell two licenses unless they first buy two licenses. The only way they can buy two licenses is if Disney sells two licenses.
A contract is an agreement to exchange one thing for another. So yes, if you buy a gallon of milk, there is a contract which grants you ownership of the milk.
The requirements of a contract are:
- Agreement (meeting of the minds). Both parties intend the same. - Offer (I'll sell you this milk for $2.50) - Acceptance (picks up milk, carry to register) - Intention. Both parties must intend or expect the agreement to be binding - Consideration (payment, exchange of some thing)
- Legal purpose (a hit man contract is not enforceable) - Capacity (Legal age, sound mind) - Formalities as required by law. (Certain types of contracts, such as the sale of land, may have additional requirements under law)
Quite aside from "cheering for the good guy", this ruling surprises me as a matter of law.
A sale is a contract, perhaps the most basic kind of contract. "You give me $X, I'll give you this thing". So let's look at how contract law applies.
> I understand the intent to be to sell you a single license that cover both media types (physical disc and download).
And that intent is a critical component of a contract, in this case a sale contract. The term of art used by lawyers is "meeting of the minds". It means you can't accidentally sell something you didn't mean to sell. Either the seller and buyer agreed on what was being sold, or there was no sale at all.
> However, the judge rules "the wording on the packaging did not create an enforceable contract."
In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.
So what, then, do you propose as the goal? What's your optimality condition?
We've shown that if equal distribution is the goal, that can be perfectly achieved by destroying all input resources and producing no good or services. So if you stick to that as the goal, socialism, and indeed any system, is strictly inferior to destruction.
Btw, you don't distribute resources. Resources are the inputs to production. You distribute the outputs.
Agile is the practice of building software without first figuring out what kind of software you need to build. It IS development by prayer - build something, anything, and then pray that it somehow related to the user's need.
The proponent of socialism is obliged to argue that the goal must only be the equal distribution of goods, because even a first-year student can show that the system is very much not optimal for the production of goods (for people having stuff) or the allocation of inputs (efficient use of resources). Therefore the socialist must argue that having things we need is not a legitimate goal, that seeking to maximize the production of goods and services is illegitimate.
However, the first-year economics student can also readily see what happens if we accept the socialist's optimality function - the equal distribution of goods. It is trivial to show that destroying all of the resources, burning all the good stuff and nobody having anything, creates a perfectly equal distribution (0=0). Therefore, by the socialist's definition of the goal (equal distribution), the perfect economic system is simple destruction. That creates more equal distribution than any other possible system.
You are correct that I, and practically every economist, do not accept equal distribution as the goal, and therefore do not believe that either destruction or socialism are optimal. Rather, we seek to optimize the production of goods and services, bases on an allocation of resources, followed by a system of exchange, which optimizes the production of goods (requiring efficient use of resources) and the freedom of the individual to acquire the resources most desired by each individual (which requires an efficient and free system of exchange post-production). In short, our goal is for people to have the stuff they want. That can be broken down into a) having stuff and B) having the items they want to have.
In a planned economy such as North Korea, people don't get the goods and services they want, they get what Dear Leader says they'll get; and they get less overall. Therefore we can see the system is suboptimal on both axes.
> Wealth an power are the problem in any economic system.
Concentrations of power tend to be associated with corruption. So that needs to be managed. The founding fathers used several mechanisms, such as spreading the majority of power between the 50 states, and dividing the federal power between three branches of government which each maintain their own power by keeping the others in check. We have perhaps screwed up by ignoring Article 1 and the 10th amendment, which restrict the federal government to only a few listed powers. Unfortunately, every time "our team", our favorite political party, is in the White House, we let them claim more and more power which simply is not granted to them by the Constitution, and is in fact forbidden the feds by the 10th amendment.
You said "wealth and power are the problem in any economic system". Wealth is the GOAL of an economic system. We all want a little wealth. No sane person is trying to create poverty.
In any economic system, some people will be good at creating and accumulating wealth, others won't be so good at it. Jealousy will arise. Sometimes, to the extent that the insanely jealous actually do start trying to create poverty. I said "no sane person wants to create poverty", but not all people are sane, some people will actually destroy things of value.
A "good" economic system should probably give everyone *opportunities* to create and to accumulate wealth. For example, the best ways to generate wealth are almost all based on investing for the long term - plant a small, nearly worthless seed today, harvest a big plant producing food or whatever many months later. Invest time studying, reap a higher salary years later. Invest your savings into business capital (factories, machines, etc), reap profits later. So a good economic system would allow people to get educated if they choose to, and allow anyone to own a part of a business. Modern capitalist countries have developed a great way to do the latter - the stock company. Anyone who wants to can become an owner of Microsoft, GM, Google, GE, or Walmart by putting in whatever amount they want, even just a couple hundred bucks if they are teenagers and haven't saved much yet.
> Venezuela's problem isn't "socialism", it's utterly corrupt and incompetent governance, socialism is just the form in which the politicians choose to express themselves.
Socialism is a system in which the government controls business. In folk songs, "the people" is used as a euphemism for government, but of course each individual person doesn't vote on all business decisions, the government, the politicians, have the power.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Themistocles knew that 2,500 years ago. Socialism is more power for politicians, and therefore more corruption.
It also begins to remove the legitimate, legal ways of gaining wealth (making cool stuff that people will buy from you), thereby leaving those who seek wealth with only illegitimate, illegal ways to do so.
The first words of TFS are "An Albuquerque man has sued Microsoft and its CEO -- Satya Nadella -- seeking a fresh copy of Windows 7 or $600 million in damages". So clearly not Texas.
In fact this is a federal suit (interstate commerce), so federal rules apply and I quoted the federal jury instruction for him.
What do you do and in what geographic area? I've had "good luck"* with all of my employment. If by chance I happen to know of a company in your area that would be interesting.
Certainly luck played a role, but I also turned down offers after investigating the company culture, and I think I've trained my bosses and those around me regarding what kind of working relationships I flourish in.
When you don't know anything about a topic, why bother making stuff up, imagining what you think might be true, and posting it?
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp - SCOTUS affirmed an award of $10 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were $19,000.
- Phillip Morris USA vs Williams -
$821,485.50 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages.
-- Federal jury instructions, telling the jury how to decide on the amount of punitive damages --
In considering the amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendantâ(TM)s conduct [, including whether the conduct that harmed the plaintiff was particularly reprehensible because it also caused actual harm or posed a substantial risk of harm to people who are not parties to this case.
Certain narrowly defined cases have limits. For example, Year 2000 bug actions against *individuals* (not corporations) are limited to treble damages. (15 U.S. Code  6604)
In most states, punitive damages are a common law matter, controlled by precedent court cases (not statues passed by the legistlature.) SCOTUS has ruled that ridiculously high damages can violate the 14th amendment, while refusing to define what "too high" is across the board. They've indicated that in *most cases*, punitive damages more than ten times the amount of compensatory damages would raise 14th amendment issues.
A *minority* of states cap punitive damages by statute. Texas, for example, uses a formula of economic and non-economic compensatory damages which results in a punitive max of three times the compensatory. Most states, however, do not.
Slashdot Mirror
It bugs me that they called themselves the "Security Innovation Center". Those of us in security have consistently advocated for the need to be able to work on devices in order to secure them. Most recently the Obama administration tried to push through regulations requiring manufacturers to "prevent the installation of OpenWRT and similar third-party firmware" on routers. We successfully argued that preventing firmware upgrades often prevents security fixes.
These jack asses do NOT represent security anything.
You can probably grep it without cloning it, but you can certainly clone it and then git log | grep
As an AC said, the big benefit to GitHub is collaboration.
Heck even if you don't have other developers, sometimes *users* can benefit from seeing changes, such as when deciding whether or not to install a new version, or if a recent change might explain some odd behavior they are seeing.
When there is more than one developer, GitHub largely provides the best of both worlds between centralized and de-centralized development. In Git, each clone of the repo is complete and you can work completely offline. There is no "master server" you have to use. I could pull code onto my laptop from your laptop. On the other hand, because your laptop may be offline at any given time, it's convenient to have the GitHub copy as a de-facto sharing point where everyone pushes code to and everyone can pull from at any time.
GitHub also provides various minor interface functions that make the workflow smoother. You can use Git without GitHub, but GitHub makes it more convenient with an easy interface to comment on pull requests, set up policy regarding if code review is required before merging, etc.
> If a VoIP call comes in to an emergency dispatcher with any "someone is trying to be tricky" indicator, that is a strong hint that it's a hoax
Such indicators are not reliable, and not always present, but there ARE indicators that could be used to *sometimes* suggest that something suspicious *might* be happening. For example, I have a list of virtually every open proxy used by hackers. Not all suspicious traffic comes through an open proxy, and not all traffic from open proxies is illegitimate, but it's an indicator that it may be suspicious. We took fifteen years building up our methods and database, so it's not trivial.
>. Maybe the company or service that connected the VoIP call to the emergency dispatcher should face fines if they cannot accurately identify the caller in the event of a hoax.
You can't do that without imposing a police state (and having serious problems when someone wants to call 911 from anywhere but their house.) In the US, we can't even expect people to show ID in order to VOTE, much less to call 911, so that's a total non-starter.
The Media Access Control (MAC) address isn't visible once it's an IP packet being routed over the internet. The "media" in "media access control" is the coaxial cable, for a cable modem. As soon as it hits the first router and transitions from coax to fiber or cat6 that's a new medium, and a new MAC. In other words, MAC is a layer 2 address.
> If there is really no way for a 911 dispatcher to tell that a call is arriving from somewhere outside the local area through a commercial VoIP service, that is a shameful state of affairs that needs to be addressed. Probably all SWATing hoaxes involve that kind of proxy
Well that is indeed how IP works. You can't reliably distinguish the location if the person has made an effort to mislead. The most popular geoip service, Max mind, claims 90 percent accuracy when nobody is trying to be tricky. That's their marketing claim for their own service; the real number is probably closer to 80 percent when no proxies are involved.
I had an idea for how to make a quite accurate geoip service, but nobody has done it yet. Maybe I should call the one company best positioned to do it using my method. It would save them money to have good geoip data, and they happen to be in a position to collect fairly reliable data.
If they aren't using proxies or anything you can fairly reliably figure out what COUNTRY they are in. As soon as it goes through a SOCKS proxy, the connection to the destination is literally coming from the proxy, so any geoip will give the location of the proxy.
No proxy is needed for geoip services such as Vonage. I've moved maybe six times since I signed up for Vonage and they know may current address only based on what I type in to their web page. How else would they know when I move? I've taken my Vonage box with me on a week-long vacation once. They have no way of knowing where I am.
I can't imagine why the NRA would do this. The NRA has a very specific purpose. Well actually there are two NRA groups, each with a specific purpose. One does gun-related safety training and such, the other defends the second amendment in the political arena. Neither has any business taking a stand on any particular regulations related to things around principles of network neutrality. It's not what they were created and funded to do.
Intentionally, knowingly, negligently, and recklessly are all key terms in law, all very well defined and they all mean different things.
If a law is supposed to mean "intentionally", they say "intentionally". "Knowingly" is distinctly different term, with a very different well-defined meaning. Knowingly means exactly what it sounds like - the person knew what was going on. "Intentionally" would mean they tried to make it happen. Reckless means with complete disregard for whether it happens, and negligent means without due care. The lowest levels, then, are "knowingly" and "negligently". "Intentionally" is the highest.
As an example, there are two laws related to the handling of classified information. Under a federal law called 18 S 1924, if someone with a security clearance KNOWINGLY moves classified information to an unapproved, unsecured place, that's a crime with a penalty of up to five years in prison. Separately, it's unlawful to *negligently* handle classified information, to not be careful with it. You have a legal duty to be *careful* that you don't put classified information in an unsecured place. This is called "Negligent Discharge of Classified Information". If someone is "careless" as to whether they allow classified information get away from secured systems that's "Negligent Discharge". If they KNOW they're removing it to an unsecured place, that's the longer prison sentence.
Once upon a time close to 50â... of adult sites which had logins used my login system I designed. These days it's probably down to 20â... or so, but still a lot of sites. What exactly would you like to know?
Bottom line is this - sites are attacked all day every day.
Restricting by IP range is a great idea - as long as you'll still have a way in when your ISP suddenly gives you a completely different range.
Also, in theory, attackers could try all ports, so it doesn't matter which port you use. In the real world, most attackers use the standard ports, so choosing a random port below 1024 greatly reduces the number of attacks. That doesn't work against theoretical attackers, but it works against most real ones.
If what was purchased was just a piece of paper, it's worthless. Disney would have no obligation to trade a ransom piece of paper for a movie. I'm pretty sure that piece of paper is a key used to identify and retrieve the purchase, which is the right to legally download and watch the movie.
Anyone can download the movie, of course, but it's illegal to do so unless you have the license. The paper holds a code which identifies a license. If it DOESN'T represent a license, it's worthless.
> If there's no feasible means to negotiate the terms, there's no meeting of the minds.
A soda machine advertises "20 oz bottle, $1" and has a button labeled "Coca-Cola". Clearly the machine owner is offering to sell you a 20oz Coke for $1. You put in your dollar and press the Coca-Cola button. You've accepted the offer. If the Coke isn't delivered, the seller has breached the contract of sale because the meeting of the minds, the agreement, is a Coke for a dollar. They can't just keep your money and say "he put the money in of his own free will, there was no agreement". Agreements can happen without extended discussion, and very often do.
I can't just decide that I own your computer. I can buy it only if you agree to sell it to me. I also can't unilaterally decide that you have bought my old junked car, and you owe me $500 for it. Both buyer and seller must agree in order for a sale to occur. An agreement, followed by an exchange (of goods, money, and/or services) has a special term in law. Agreements backed by an exchange are called "contracts".
Contracts by minors are generally voidable - they can undo them. Which means if you sell something to a minor, they can return the item to the store and get there money back. That doesn't mean the contract doesn't exist, and there is a difference between voidable and void. It's a perfectly valid, enforceable contract unless and until the minor voids it. Specifically, that means the minor can enforce the contract against the adult.
There are certain exceptions. One of the most important is a contract for necessities (food etc). This clause is so that people aren't afraid to sell necessities to minors who need them. Another "exception" is that a minor can petition the court to make a contract non-voidable. This can be used with high-dollar contracts such as Selena Gomez's first record contract. The court looks at the contract to ensure it's fair, then endorses the contract to make it binding.
You can't sell what isn't yours to sell. The store can't sell two licenses unless they first buy two licenses. The only way they can buy two licenses is if Disney sells two licenses.
A contract is an agreement to exchange one thing for another. So yes, if you buy a gallon of milk, there is a contract which grants you ownership of the milk.
The requirements of a contract are:
- Agreement (meeting of the minds). Both parties intend the same.
- Offer (I'll sell you this milk for $2.50)
- Acceptance (picks up milk, carry to register)
- Intention. Both parties must intend or expect the agreement to be binding
- Consideration (payment, exchange of some thing)
- Legal purpose (a hit man contract is not enforceable)
- Capacity (Legal age, sound mind)
- Formalities as required by law. (Certain types of contracts, such as the sale of land, may have additional requirements under law)
Quite aside from "cheering for the good guy", this ruling surprises me as a matter of law.
A sale is a contract, perhaps the most basic kind of contract. "You give me $X, I'll give you this thing". So let's look at how contract law applies.
> I understand the intent to be to sell you a single license that cover both media types (physical disc and download).
And that intent is a critical component of a contract, in this case a sale contract. The term of art used by lawyers is "meeting of the minds". It means you can't accidentally sell something you didn't mean to sell. Either the seller and buyer agreed on what was being sold, or there was no sale at all.
> However, the judge rules "the wording on the packaging did not create an enforceable contract."
In which case there would be no contract, no agreement to sell. Without a contract of sale, Redbox would have no license at all.
So what, then, do you propose as the goal? What's your optimality condition?
We've shown that if equal distribution is the goal, that can be perfectly achieved by destroying all input resources and producing no good or services. So if you stick to that as the goal, socialism, and indeed any system, is strictly inferior to destruction.
Btw, you don't distribute resources. Resources are the inputs to production. You distribute the outputs.
Agile is the practice of building software without first figuring out what kind of software you need to build. It IS development by prayer - build something, anything, and then pray that it somehow related to the user's need.
The proponent of socialism is obliged to argue that the goal must only be the equal distribution of goods, because even a first-year student can show that the system is very much not optimal for the production of goods (for people having stuff) or the allocation of inputs (efficient use of resources). Therefore the socialist must argue that having things we need is not a legitimate goal, that seeking to maximize the production of goods and services is illegitimate.
However, the first-year economics student can also readily see what happens if we accept the socialist's optimality function - the equal distribution of goods. It is trivial to show that destroying all of the resources, burning all the good stuff and nobody having anything, creates a perfectly equal distribution (0=0). Therefore, by the socialist's definition of the goal (equal distribution), the perfect economic system is simple destruction. That creates more equal distribution than any other possible system.
You are correct that I, and practically every economist, do not accept equal distribution as the goal, and therefore do not believe that either destruction or socialism are optimal. Rather, we seek to optimize the production of goods and services, bases on an allocation of resources, followed by a system of exchange, which optimizes the production of goods (requiring efficient use of resources) and the freedom of the individual to acquire the resources most desired by each individual (which requires an efficient and free system of exchange post-production). In short, our goal is for people to have the stuff they want. That can be broken down into a) having stuff and B) having the items they want to have.
In a planned economy such as North Korea, people don't get the goods and services they want, they get what Dear Leader says they'll get; and they get less overall. Therefore we can see the system is suboptimal on both axes.
It is a very bad economic system indeed that only slices up the pie, and pays no attention to how big the pie can be.
> Some economic systems encourage the accumulation of wealth as a goal (capitalism). Others try to encourage the sharing of wealth (socialism).
Capitalism, the definition, is:
Those who invest their savings into business capital (machines, factories) reap commensurate reward.
Socialism is "everybody owns the factories, whether or not the do anything to help create them".
The goal of capitalism, therefore, is to produce more by encouraging investment. The goal of socialism is to be fair by having everyone equally poor.
> Wealth an power are the problem in any economic system.
Concentrations of power tend to be associated with corruption. So that needs to be managed. The founding fathers used several mechanisms, such as spreading the majority of power between the 50 states, and dividing the federal power between three branches of government which each maintain their own power by keeping the others in check. We have perhaps screwed up by ignoring Article 1 and the 10th amendment, which restrict the federal government to only a few listed powers. Unfortunately, every time "our team", our favorite political party, is in the White House, we let them claim more and more power which simply is not granted to them by the Constitution, and is in fact forbidden the feds by the 10th amendment.
You said "wealth and power are the problem in any economic system". Wealth is the GOAL of an economic system. We all want a little wealth. No sane person is trying to create poverty.
In any economic system, some people will be good at creating and accumulating wealth, others won't be so good at it. Jealousy will arise. Sometimes, to the extent that the insanely jealous actually do start trying to create poverty. I said "no sane person wants to create poverty", but not all people are sane, some people will actually destroy things of value.
A "good" economic system should probably give everyone *opportunities* to create and to accumulate wealth. For example, the best ways to generate wealth are almost all based on investing for the long term - plant a small, nearly worthless seed today, harvest a big plant producing food or whatever many months later. Invest time studying, reap a higher salary years later. Invest your savings into business capital (factories, machines, etc), reap profits later. So a good economic system would allow people to get educated if they choose to, and allow anyone to own a part of a business. Modern capitalist countries have developed a great way to do the latter - the stock company. Anyone who wants to can become an owner of Microsoft, GM, Google, GE, or Walmart by putting in whatever amount they want, even just a couple hundred bucks if they are teenagers and haven't saved much yet.
> Venezuela's problem isn't "socialism", it's utterly corrupt and incompetent governance, socialism is just the form in which the politicians choose to express themselves.
Socialism is a system in which the government controls business. In folk songs, "the people" is used as a euphemism for government, but of course each individual person doesn't vote on all business decisions, the government, the politicians, have the power.
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Themistocles knew that 2,500 years ago. Socialism is more power for politicians, and therefore more corruption.
It also begins to remove the legitimate, legal ways of gaining wealth (making cool stuff that people will buy from you), thereby leaving those who seek wealth with only illegitimate, illegal ways to do so.
The first words of TFS are "An Albuquerque man has sued Microsoft and its CEO -- Satya Nadella -- seeking a fresh copy of Windows 7 or $600 million in damages". So clearly not Texas.
In fact this is a federal suit (interstate commerce), so federal rules apply and I quoted the federal jury instruction for him.
What do you do and in what geographic area? I've had "good luck"* with all of my employment. If by chance I happen to know of a company in your area that would be interesting.
Certainly luck played a role, but I also turned down offers after investigating the company culture, and I think I've trained my bosses and those around me regarding what kind of working relationships I flourish in.
When you don't know anything about a topic, why bother making stuff up, imagining what you think might be true, and posting it?
- TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp -
SCOTUS affirmed an award of $10 million in punitive damages. The compensatory damages were $19,000.
- Phillip Morris USA vs Williams -
$821,485.50 in compensatory damages and $79.5 million in punitive damages.
-- Federal jury instructions, telling the jury how to decide on the amount of punitive damages --
In considering the amount of any punitive damages, consider the degree of reprehensibility of the defendantâ(TM)s conduct [, including whether the conduct that harmed the plaintiff was particularly reprehensible because it also caused actual harm or posed a substantial risk of harm to people who are not parties to this case.
Certain narrowly defined cases have limits. For example, Year 2000 bug actions against *individuals* (not corporations) are limited to treble damages. (15 U.S. Code  6604)
In most states, punitive damages are a common law matter, controlled by precedent court cases (not statues passed by the legistlature.) SCOTUS has ruled that ridiculously high damages can violate the 14th amendment, while refusing to define what "too high" is across the board. They've indicated that in *most cases*, punitive damages more than ten times the amount of compensatory damages would raise 14th amendment issues.
A *minority* of states cap punitive damages by statute. Texas, for example, uses a formula of economic and non-economic compensatory damages which results in a punitive max of three times the compensatory. Most states, however, do not.