Then how often does this happen for the firm? Putting the company's reputation on the line for an isolated incident, where the reviewer demonstrably tells the truth, does not seem like a calculated move, especially if you're leaning on hope for victory. If you regularily need to suppress such incidents, then its just part of the business model. Or maybe I'm overthinking this.
I wonder what outcome the firm was expecting from this lawsuit? In what way does winning 200k imaginary dollars outweigh the reputation of them suing their own clients for sharing their experiences? Am I missing something?
If you see mosquito larvae infesting a pond, do you bring them home only to let them out again later?
If you see a smoldering ember in a tinder-dry forest, do you cover it in firewood and hope that it suffocates?
If you see someone falling into mental illness, do you lock them up and consider them cured?
FTFY.
Your original scenarios all have clear answers, but are not applicable to this case. Swatting or stamping this man out would certainly prevent any future wrongdoings on his part, but is not likely a quality solution, since his crimes as of yet are surfing the web selectively, dressing funny and getting annoyed by his family. If he were to be treated, what for? Repeated exposure to non-conforming values? This is simply punishing him for being a suspected infidel to decency.
That being said, some form of action should probably be taken in cases like this. I cannot, however, see how anyone would think prison and fines would help in any way. To the contrary, terrorists can simply take extra measures to stay hidden, and will have more reasons to fuel their hate.
Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it.
What is this? Interplanetary travel?
There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip.
The traffic jam is still happening, you would just be personally avoiding it. I guess this could be analogous to carbon credits.
We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
Fact remains, there's still a traffic jam, however you choose to avoid it.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Slamming the brakes is indeed no solution, but maybe slowing down enough to be able to react to whatever emerges over the horizon? Otherwise you could be the one ending up surprised.
Maybe the car analogy is not proper here. The road might be more fitting, and currently we are driving on it using tank treads, seemingly oblivious to its is deterioration. When it breaks, it will have to be closed until fixed, and traffic halts indefinitely. Unless, of course, we have converted to flying cars by then.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of 8 tech companies, not one says it would help build Muslim registry for Trump.
Then how often does this happen for the firm? Putting the company's reputation on the line for an isolated incident, where the reviewer demonstrably tells the truth, does not seem like a calculated move, especially if you're leaning on hope for victory. If you regularily need to suppress such incidents, then its just part of the business model. Or maybe I'm overthinking this.
I wonder what outcome the firm was expecting from this lawsuit? In what way does winning 200k imaginary dollars outweigh the reputation of them suing their own clients for sharing their experiences? Am I missing something?
If you see mosquito larvae infesting a pond, do you bring them home only to let them out again later?
If you see a smoldering ember in a tinder-dry forest, do you cover it in firewood and hope that it suffocates?
If you see someone falling into mental illness, do you lock them up and consider them cured?
FTFY.
Your original scenarios all have clear answers, but are not applicable to this case. Swatting or stamping this man out would certainly prevent any future wrongdoings on his part, but is not likely a quality solution, since his crimes as of yet are surfing the web selectively, dressing funny and getting annoyed by his family. If he were to be treated, what for? Repeated exposure to non-conforming values? This is simply punishing him for being a suspected infidel to decency.
That being said, some form of action should probably be taken in cases like this. I cannot, however, see how anyone would think prison and fines would help in any way. To the contrary, terrorists can simply take extra measures to stay hidden, and will have more reasons to fuel their hate.
And yet we wonder where Brexit and Donald Trump came from.
From the two most prominent countries still using mph?
The chance of a "digital death penalty" is greatly mitigated by not having a "digital deathwish".
If you go for a 512GB SSD at $1,150, you're only saving $420 on a new 2.0GHz MacBook Pro.
I wouldn't call 26% cheaper for better specs "only". How much is enough?
Well, now less people will think that.
What about actual news, did they affect the election? Many articles seems to indicate otherwise.
This is critical because over 60 percent people in the United States consume their news on social media.
No, this is what's critical.
Yes, tanks can go many places. The goal here is to keep the road drivable.
Except the scientists haven't said anything about the fact that we might have converted to a flying car by the time we get to the jam and would be able to fly right over it.
What is this? Interplanetary travel?
There is also the potential that we could get off on a side road and take a slightly longer route that ultimately saves the trip.
The traffic jam is still happening, you would just be personally avoiding it. I guess this could be analogous to carbon credits.
We could theoretically also just leave the road and drive through the grass to avoid the jam even though it would be very hard on the car and be very uncomfortable.
Fact remains, there's still a traffic jam, however you choose to avoid it.
The people demanding we slam on the brakes don't see anything other than the traffic jam. Those are the kinds of people that end up causing accidents by over braking way early and catching people by surprise.
Slamming the brakes is indeed no solution, but maybe slowing down enough to be able to react to whatever emerges over the horizon? Otherwise you could be the one ending up surprised.
Maybe the car analogy is not proper here. The road might be more fitting, and currently we are driving on it using tank treads, seemingly oblivious to its is deterioration. When it breaks, it will have to be closed until fixed, and traffic halts indefinitely. Unless, of course, we have converted to flying cars by then.