Honestly, I would likely cancel my Netflix subscription if it didn't keep some $100 cable package at bay for the rest of my family (mostly my son).
Yes, that. They've got a few series with seriously deep catalogs: Law & Order (in several flavors), CSI (in several flavors), NCIS (in several flavors)... hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here.
Short version is everyone in my family would have to binge for weeks to get through all the stuff we have in our queues. And that's not even counting the 30 or so movies I've got in there after reading interesting reviews. It's not the blockbusters, but I don't like a lot of those anyway.
One of the largest dangers in a car accident is being thrown out of the car (in the car you are, after all, surrounded by protecting metal), and leaving the doors unlocked increases that danger.
Being thrown from a vehicle (or not) is almost entirely a function of whether you were wearing a seatbelt. If the only thing keeping you from leaving the vehicle is the door, chances are all you accomplished is saving the road crew the hassle of scraping you off the pavement.
>This is not Europe where govt pays for you to go to college
Doesn't matter because it's a broken assumption to think that college is for everyone.
That's not the entire answer, but it's a huge part of it. Even if every unemployed person without a college degree were willing and able to get one, that would put downward pressure on salaries for the people they're now competing with.
Yes, but add a chip and now it's uncrackable! That's why in the US we don't even bother with chip and pin, but rather allow chip and sign. Would the industry allow something so seemingly brain-dead if the system weren't secure?
If you accept the premise that there's a problem* then isn't this exactly the right thing to do?
He's saying there's a problem, and asking the people in the best position to do something about it to figure out a way. And don't pretend there's nothing they can do; Google image search is pretty damn good at identifying image content.
* If you want to deny the premise this doesn't apply, so go reply to someone else.
You make it sound like this was an official statement of policy from Microsoft's Board of Directors, with BG himself consulted to help craft the appropriate response.
It was an official response to a media inquiry. Nobody at Microsoft PR would do that without making sure it was the company's position.
Why are you so determined to give them cover for this?
Serious question: In Debt of Honor there was a hack directed against the NYSE. They rolled back all transactions for the day. In a bank hack no one took physical cash. If they can show the transactions were fraudulent, why can't they just reverse it?
Banning alcohol didn't require the amendment, but by doing it that way they could prohibit it nationwide in a way that was much harder to repeal. The only real difference between something in the constitution and a federal law is how hard it is to change.
Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others.
OK, three things.
First, there's a difference between using drugs and abusing drugs.
Second, this article isn't about "drugs" it's about marijuana. So what meth users do has no bearing on what marijuana users do.
Third, how do you define "rarely"? If drug abusers "are rarely able to avoid hurting others" does that mean that for every incident of drug use there's a >50% chance that the user will hurt someone else? How about >50% for each year that they use "frequently"? Or do you mean >50% of all users will hurt someone at some time in their life? I can't think of how you'd define "rarely able" that isn't complete bullshit.
How would I demonstrate that the product is falsely labeled? I still don't have a lab.
How would I pay for the experts to testify against Wal-Mart? They might hire a lawyer to disagree.
How would I establish standing? My actual damages are limited to the amount I've personally spent on the fraudulent products. Oh, maybe I get a class action certified! Now I need dozens of lawyers.
Who does Wal-Mart pay the damages to? If the answer is "the class members" you really mean "mostly the lawyers".
Without an agency funded and tasked to do this, it's not worth anyone's time and effort to do it themselves.
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, I would likely cancel my Netflix subscription if it didn't keep some $100 cable package at bay for the rest of my family (mostly my son).
Yes, that. They've got a few series with seriously deep catalogs: Law & Order (in several flavors), CSI (in several flavors), NCIS (in several flavors) ... hmm, I'm seeing a pattern here.
Short version is everyone in my family would have to binge for weeks to get through all the stuff we have in our queues. And that's not even counting the 30 or so movies I've got in there after reading interesting reviews. It's not the blockbusters, but I don't like a lot of those anyway.
One of the largest dangers in a car accident is being thrown out of the car (in the car you are, after all, surrounded by protecting metal), and leaving the doors unlocked increases that danger.
Being thrown from a vehicle (or not) is almost entirely a function of whether you were wearing a seatbelt. If the only thing keeping you from leaving the vehicle is the door, chances are all you accomplished is saving the road crew the hassle of scraping you off the pavement.
>This is not Europe where govt pays for you to go to college
Doesn't matter because it's a broken assumption to think that college is for everyone.
That's not the entire answer, but it's a huge part of it. Even if every unemployed person without a college degree were willing and able to get one, that would put downward pressure on salaries for the people they're now competing with.
Wish I had mod points.
So chip and pin is broken by the requirement to support chip and sign. Awesome.
Yes, but add a chip and now it's uncrackable! That's why in the US we don't even bother with chip and pin, but rather allow chip and sign. Would the industry allow something so seemingly brain-dead if the system weren't secure?
If you accept the premise that there's a problem* then isn't this exactly the right thing to do?
He's saying there's a problem, and asking the people in the best position to do something about it to figure out a way. And don't pretend there's nothing they can do; Google image search is pretty damn good at identifying image content.
* If you want to deny the premise this doesn't apply, so go reply to someone else.
Thanks. Looks like other people were wondering the same thing.
You make it sound like this was an official statement of policy from Microsoft's Board of Directors, with BG himself consulted to help craft the appropriate response.
It was an official response to a media inquiry. Nobody at Microsoft PR would do that without making sure it was the company's position.
Why are you so determined to give them cover for this?
Serious question: In Debt of Honor there was a hack directed against the NYSE. They rolled back all transactions for the day. In a bank hack no one took physical cash. If they can show the transactions were fraudulent, why can't they just reverse it?
It's a hoax. He was never on the moon either.
Say that to his face. I dare ya.
Banning alcohol didn't require the amendment, but by doing it that way they could prohibit it nationwide in a way that was much harder to repeal. The only real difference between something in the constitution and a federal law is how hard it is to change.
Problem is that people that abuse drugs are rarely able to avoid hurting others.
OK, three things.
First, there's a difference between using drugs and abusing drugs.
Second, this article isn't about "drugs" it's about marijuana. So what meth users do has no bearing on what marijuana users do.
Third, how do you define "rarely"? If drug abusers "are rarely able to avoid hurting others" does that mean that for every incident of drug use there's a >50% chance that the user will hurt someone else? How about >50% for each year that they use "frequently"? Or do you mean >50% of all users will hurt someone at some time in their life? I can't think of how you'd define "rarely able" that isn't complete bullshit.
That's a lot of wrong to fit into just 14 words.
Whoops, someone beat me to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It's supposed to be a warning, not a playbook.
It gets tiring watching law makers passing laws with no real understanding of how technology actually works.
Why do people keep assuming lawmakers don't understand technology? Isn't it possible their goals aren't what they say they are?
He is going to be our next president for the next ten years.
He'll only be our next president until January 20th.
Is it possible to debate the definition of pedantry without also demonstrating it?
You're modded funny, and it is ... but it's also completely accurate. Excellent.
I think you are missing how pedantic some people can be.
I don't think "pedantic" takes a modifier. You either are or you aren't.
How could you possibly miss the liberal sarcasm rampant in that post?
Do you mean liberal as in political viewpoint, or liberal as in generous amounts of sarcasm? I need to know so I can be properly offended.
How would I demonstrate that the product is falsely labeled? I still don't have a lab.
How would I pay for the experts to testify against Wal-Mart? They might hire a lawyer to disagree.
How would I establish standing? My actual damages are limited to the amount I've personally spent on the fraudulent products. Oh, maybe I get a class action certified! Now I need dozens of lawyers.
Who does Wal-Mart pay the damages to? If the answer is "the class members" you really mean "mostly the lawyers".
Without an agency funded and tasked to do this, it's not worth anyone's time and effort to do it themselves.
What do I win?
Most Americans can't find America on the map
Where's the moderation for "Sad but true"?
I"it may never stop"...stop relative to what?
And don't forget, "2,000 kilometers per second" ... relative to what?