The summary leaves out the whole point of the article.
"The observations neatly match theories about the formation of the solar system, which posits that bodies formed in warm environments would be found closer to the sun and those formed in cold environments are farther away... But a new analysis, this time based on 100,000 asteroids of varying sizes, tells a far different story."
No, not company-wide; it was just an experimental thing in a few places. They also experimented with the concept of "mobile workstations", where you don't HAVE an office, you just find a different desk to use every day. Which is nice for people who travel a lot and don't have stuff they actually need to STORE in an office. And strongly disliked by most everyone else.
Example of a bad open office: "Let's make the cubicles smaller and shorten the walls!" (seen at Intel)
Example of a good open office: "Let's put everyone on this small team in the same walled-off space" (seen at a lot of local startups)
HA, let's not be hasty. I'm actually pretty far right-wing, and I'm not saying Fox News is the only source of idiots; just that IN THIS CASE, the two idiots involved were from Fox News and Slashdot.
The quality of most online news is pretty shitty, because authors are paid for the number of views they generate. So there is a lot of incentive to write a lot of articles with interesting headlines, and little to no incentive to actually learn what the hell you're talking about.
The point of Bitcoin is that it's decentralized. There's no single entity that keeps track of what money is where. Every person who uses Bitcoin has a record of every transaction (in the form of the blockchain), and is involved in the process of verifying transactions (in the form of bitcoin mining). Although the security is still being debated, in theory, you would need to control half the computing power of the Bitcoin network in order to break the security.
In contrast, this patent seems to be talking about a system that uses your same old credit card account. Which is not surprising; how would a BANK use a DECENTRALIZED currency system with its customers?
So basically, this is a meaningless article written by some idiot at Fox News who wanted to make a headline that would stand out. Which I suppose worked, since it made it past the impeccable Slashdot editing process.
Uh, because a Chromebook isn't (and isn't intended to be) a general purpose computer? You might as well be asking "why do Apple employees not do their work on iPod Touches?"
>being facetious
Even if the number of windows was 100, he should not pay restitution for windows he didn't break. Note that the above poster has since clarified that he more referring to fines than restitution, so the point is now moot.
>they don't agree with you
Do you have an example of a person who caused damage to company "A", and was forced to pay restitution to "A" for damage the person also MIGHT have caused to "B", "C", "D", etc.? If so I would be interested to hear it. (Note that this is completely different than the topic of the submission, but we keep going down this road I'll play along)
>Would you be surprised if he were ordered to pay the cost of replacing the window which had an original cost of $200.00 with an impact resistant window that costs $1,000.00
Maybe mildly surprised.
>and the cost of installing the new windows
No, not surprised.
>You are again engaging in a straw man http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
I am directly criticizing the decision of the judge. You could call "straw man" if I decided to, for example, introduce an unfitting analogy of breaking windows. But I didn't do that, the above poster did.
>your opinion
Of course it's a matter of opinion when you boil it down. Laws are not black and white, this is why we have judges. The judge decided that the security consultant was a "reasonably needed service" in response to the crime. I argue that this goes against the spirit of the law, since the security consultant leaves the company in a BETTER position than it was in before the crime was committed. I think you'd find this hard to dispute. Although to argue whether or not the decision goes against the letter of the law, I would need to sort through poorly organized documents from the supreme court of Kansas, which I'm not going to bother doing. That's what lawyers are for.
I said the person needs to be fined enough that breaking 1000 windows isn't worth it
Ok, thanks for clarifying. In that case I think we're on the same page, although I would be more general and say "the person needs to be penalized enough that breaking 1000 windows isn't worth it."
However, if this is what you meant, then your analogy is not completely fitting. Your analogy is talking about a fine, whereas the submission is talking about restitution paid directly to Koch.
And even if the $183,000 WAS in the form of a fine, I feel it's a bit overboard, although that's a matter of opinion.
>why would I go to jail
Because that's how our legal system works?
>You have made the parameter such that if I pay for replacing the window, all is right
Citation please.
>you are also suggesting that the subject of the submission should not have gotten probation but should be in prison
I was responding to your example of throwing a brick through your window every day. Participating in a DDOS and breaking a person's window every day are likely to be viewed differently by a judge.
>straw man argument
Breaking out the adult terms, eh? And you are mistaken. The above poster seemed to imply that, because I could break 1000 windows, I should pay the cost of 1000 windows. In the post that you originally replied to, that was the only thing I was arguing against. Our courts seem to agree with me, do they not?
>He
Oh, so we're back to talking about Rosol now? Ok.
>is being fined
No, he is paying restitution. Admittedly I used the wrong term in my initial post, but since the discussion has progressed this far I feel it's necessary to clarify. Restitution is money paid to the party that was wronged. A fine is money paid to a central authority.
>for 1000 windows
Can we stop trying to compare a DDOS attack to breaking windows? It's a bit like apples and oranges.
>don't like the amount of the fine
No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?
>If he had broken a $300.00 window in California, he could be fined $10,000.00
Yes. But I would be surprised if he was sentenced to pay restitution for the cost of hiring a consultant to help defend the window in the future.
>upset
Oh? I thought I had presented myself rather calmly.
>are arguing he is being fined for more than his single act
I'm arguing that he is being ordered to pay for something that is beyond the scope of restitution (hiring a security consultant). Do you disagree? If so, why?
I never said that punitive damage in its entirety should not exist. It has its merits as a crime deterrent, and as a means for the state to collect income. I simply stated that a person who breaks 1 window should not be fined for breaking 1000 windows, and that this 1000 window fine does not exist, at least in any legal system I know of. Am I incorrect? If so, by all means, set the record straight.
No matter what the penalty has to be higher than the cost of replacing the window
newsflash: that's what prisons are for.
Prison is disliked pretty equally by everyone, whereas punitive damage affects the poor far more than the rich. Do you realize that the very concept of punitive damage is subject to criticism, and many countries get by fine without it?
And you never answered my question. Do you think a person who breaks 1 window should be fined for 1000 windows?
Let me get this straight.
Are you seriously telling me that you think that someone who breaks 1 window should be fined for 1000 windows, JUST BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE been them?
Because, in case you haven't noticed, that's not the way it works. In any legal system, anywhere. You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.
If your point is that the fine is not enough incentive to prevent people from breaking windows, newsflash: that's what prisons are for.
Yes, we should arrest people that throw a brick through a window.
But we should fine them the price of the window, not the price of hiring an elite security team to protect the window from future brick attacks.
Slashdot Mirror
It was designed by someone with a massive whitespace fetish who has clearly never actually used the site.
I will leave the site in a heartbeat if this is forced on people, it's just plain unusable.
The summary leaves out the whole point of the article.
"The observations neatly match theories about the formation of the solar system, which posits that bodies formed in warm environments would be found closer to the sun and those formed in cold environments are farther away... But a new analysis, this time based on 100,000 asteroids of varying sizes, tells a far different story."
No, not company-wide; it was just an experimental thing in a few places. They also experimented with the concept of "mobile workstations", where you don't HAVE an office, you just find a different desk to use every day. Which is nice for people who travel a lot and don't have stuff they actually need to STORE in an office. And strongly disliked by most everyone else.
Example of a bad open office: "Let's make the cubicles smaller and shorten the walls!" (seen at Intel)
Example of a good open office: "Let's put everyone on this small team in the same walled-off space" (seen at a lot of local startups)
Debates are built on logic and facts.
Creationists choose faith over logic and facts. This isn't me being judgmental; they openly admit this, and take pride in it.
Maybe because it was posted less than 24 hours ago?
HA, let's not be hasty. I'm actually pretty far right-wing, and I'm not saying Fox News is the only source of idiots; just that IN THIS CASE, the two idiots involved were from Fox News and Slashdot.
The quality of most online news is pretty shitty, because authors are paid for the number of views they generate. So there is a lot of incentive to write a lot of articles with interesting headlines, and little to no incentive to actually learn what the hell you're talking about.
The point of Bitcoin is that it's decentralized. There's no single entity that keeps track of what money is where. Every person who uses Bitcoin has a record of every transaction (in the form of the blockchain), and is involved in the process of verifying transactions (in the form of bitcoin mining). Although the security is still being debated, in theory, you would need to control half the computing power of the Bitcoin network in order to break the security.
In contrast, this patent seems to be talking about a system that uses your same old credit card account. Which is not surprising; how would a BANK use a DECENTRALIZED currency system with its customers?
So basically, this is a meaningless article written by some idiot at Fox News who wanted to make a headline that would stand out. Which I suppose worked, since it made it past the impeccable Slashdot editing process.
Uh, because a Chromebook isn't (and isn't intended to be) a general purpose computer? You might as well be asking "why do Apple employees not do their work on iPod Touches?"
No, it is not ironic. Coincidental and mildly humorous, yes, but not ironic.
I guess they forgot the part where Batman has it destroyed it because it poses a danger to society and goes against everything he believes in.
Typo: "...was referring more to fines than restitution..."
>being facetious
Even if the number of windows was 100, he should not pay restitution for windows he didn't break. Note that the above poster has since clarified that he more referring to fines than restitution, so the point is now moot.
>they don't agree with you
Do you have an example of a person who caused damage to company "A", and was forced to pay restitution to "A" for damage the person also MIGHT have caused to "B", "C", "D", etc.? If so I would be interested to hear it. (Note that this is completely different than the topic of the submission, but we keep going down this road I'll play along)
>Would you be surprised if he were ordered to pay the cost of replacing the window which had an original cost of $200.00 with an impact resistant window that costs $1,000.00
Maybe mildly surprised.
>and the cost of installing the new windows
No, not surprised.
>You are again engaging in a straw man
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
I am directly criticizing the decision of the judge. You could call "straw man" if I decided to, for example, introduce an unfitting analogy of breaking windows. But I didn't do that, the above poster did.
>your opinion
Of course it's a matter of opinion when you boil it down. Laws are not black and white, this is why we have judges. The judge decided that the security consultant was a "reasonably needed service" in response to the crime. I argue that this goes against the spirit of the law, since the security consultant leaves the company in a BETTER position than it was in before the crime was committed. I think you'd find this hard to dispute. Although to argue whether or not the decision goes against the letter of the law, I would need to sort through poorly organized documents from the supreme court of Kansas, which I'm not going to bother doing. That's what lawyers are for.
I said the person needs to be fined enough that breaking 1000 windows isn't worth it
Ok, thanks for clarifying. In that case I think we're on the same page, although I would be more general and say "the person needs to be penalized enough that breaking 1000 windows isn't worth it."
However, if this is what you meant, then your analogy is not completely fitting. Your analogy is talking about a fine, whereas the submission is talking about restitution paid directly to Koch.
And even if the $183,000 WAS in the form of a fine, I feel it's a bit overboard, although that's a matter of opinion.
>why would I go to jail
Because that's how our legal system works?
>You have made the parameter such that if I pay for replacing the window, all is right
Citation please.
>you are also suggesting that the subject of the submission should not have gotten probation but should be in prison
I was responding to your example of throwing a brick through your window every day. Participating in a DDOS and breaking a person's window every day are likely to be viewed differently by a judge.
>straw man argument
Breaking out the adult terms, eh? And you are mistaken. The above poster seemed to imply that, because I could break 1000 windows, I should pay the cost of 1000 windows. In the post that you originally replied to, that was the only thing I was arguing against. Our courts seem to agree with me, do they not?
>He
Oh, so we're back to talking about Rosol now? Ok.
>is being fined
No, he is paying restitution. Admittedly I used the wrong term in my initial post, but since the discussion has progressed this far I feel it's necessary to clarify. Restitution is money paid to the party that was wronged. A fine is money paid to a central authority.
>for 1000 windows
Can we stop trying to compare a DDOS attack to breaking windows? It's a bit like apples and oranges.
>don't like the amount of the fine
No, I don't. Do you? If so, why?
>If he had broken a $300.00 window in California, he could be fined $10,000.00
Yes. But I would be surprised if he was sentenced to pay restitution for the cost of hiring a consultant to help defend the window in the future.
>upset
Oh? I thought I had presented myself rather calmly.
>are arguing he is being fined for more than his single act
I'm arguing that he is being ordered to pay for something that is beyond the scope of restitution (hiring a security consultant). Do you disagree? If so, why?
So nothing for cleaning up the mess? the temporary plywood covering? the lost sales? the additional (and unnecessary stress)?
Yes, you should pay for those things as well. I was using the term "cost" loosely.
And it will be hard to break your window constantly every day while I'm in jail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole
Yes, I completely agree with your point. I was just adding my own two cents.
I never said that punitive damage in its entirety should not exist. It has its merits as a crime deterrent, and as a means for the state to collect income. I simply stated that a person who breaks 1 window should not be fined for breaking 1000 windows, and that this 1000 window fine does not exist, at least in any legal system I know of. Am I incorrect? If so, by all means, set the record straight.
I think it might be hard for you to do that while you're in jail. Unless you have a REALLY good throwing arm.
No matter what the penalty has to be higher than the cost of replacing the window
newsflash: that's what prisons are for.
Prison is disliked pretty equally by everyone, whereas punitive damage affects the poor far more than the rich. Do you realize that the very concept of punitive damage is subject to criticism, and many countries get by fine without it?
And you never answered my question. Do you think a person who breaks 1 window should be fined for 1000 windows?
Thank you; here's a person who gets it.
Let me get this straight.
Are you seriously telling me that you think that someone who breaks 1 window should be fined for 1000 windows, JUST BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE been them?
Because, in case you haven't noticed, that's not the way it works. In any legal system, anywhere. You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot with this argument.
If your point is that the fine is not enough incentive to prevent people from breaking windows, newsflash: that's what prisons are for.
Yes, we should arrest people that throw a brick through a window. But we should fine them the price of the window, not the price of hiring an elite security team to protect the window from future brick attacks.