TJX is liable. There's no question of that. But not for an attractive nuisance. Merely for negligence in disclosing valuable information entrusted to them.
The reason that happens is that people moving and requesting new accounts happens thousands of times a day, so banks consider it much more costly to vet those activities than to chase down the few frauds who slip into line.
And they really, truly, don't give a flying fuck how much it costs you to clear up anything that doesn't directly involve them. It doesn't enter into their forecasts, and they don't waste time agonizing over it. They're too busy analyzing politicians for malleability, because stopping regulation earns them a 400-1000% ROI.
Report the fraud to the police. They will ask a judge, nicely, to look into the "private" data, and then they will arrest, try, convict, and punish the perpetrator.
That is, if it's above the baseline for their enforcement budget for the year, and they don't have something serious to deal with.
But you can only do that if it's still costing you money.
Once the credit-card company comped your account, you no longer had a case, but they did, so it's their concern, not yours.
But watch all your other financial accounts; if your identity really was stolen, and it's not just a case of someone having your credit card number and using it on a website that doesn't actually check any identification, then you might see people opening bank accounts, applying for loans, starting businesses, etc. under your name.
That's not attractive nuisance. An attractive nuisance is something that is inviting but dangerous to children, like an unfenced swimming pool or a broken swingset. A pile of gold may be inviting, but it's not dangerous. And attractive nuisance isn't a mitigating factor in charges against the child, it's a charge against the person who left the nuisance where it could do harm to the child.
Stealing others' property is never excused by "they should have locked it up" arguments. Nor is hacking into others' computers.
Maybe if certain people hadn't shipped millions of jobs to sweatshop countries we wouldn't have "too many" college graduates chasing after shit-work jobs now.
And that's a grave mistake. If you don't actually know how the money is moved, you can't know what the forces on it are, or what sort of uncertainties there are, even in something carried to exact precision.
So we should continue subsidizing meaningless attempts to educate people who are at college for the frat parties just because it's the "American Dream?"
When phones are capable of running it, it might start to catch on again.
Actually, my Nexus One does pretty good with 3D graphics, but the apps are pretty simplified. Having them be fully interactive with most of the information transfer occurring over the data link would bog it down to a small fraction of an FPS.
So the 2-D click-and-wait model still makes the most sense for the machinery that's gaining market share the fastest.
1. IE ('nuff sed for many) 2. Not the latest rev, certainly not later than the HTML5 standard. 3. Microsoft has made noises yet again about never actually standardizing per the standard.
If your point is that you want a quill pen to be able to browse the web with 100% functionality, then you need to sharpen your point.
I wonder if they'd care to post the names, birth dates, family trees, and work and school histories of everyone who attends the meeting to their own website.
Uh-huh. And where are the "open source" community going to get the money to pay for the clinical trials? How many in this community are willing to do thousands of pro-bono hours of legal paperwork just to get a trial noticed by the FDA? This isn't like writing a new search tool. Your suck can't languish on SourceForge for years, baiting people into corrupting their filesystems while you're off dealing with something else. Your product has to be tested on real human beings, after reams of other data has been produced.
I don't mind big pharma companies owning their stuff. I do mind that they charge way more than it cost to develop. And it should be illegal to spend more on advertising than they do on development just to create false competitive pressure to keep the prices high. And I'm pretty sure that some of the things they do in terms of fixing prices in various nations are illegal, but nobody's actually doing anything concrete about it (although, iirc, this was one of the points in one of the healthcare bills being voted on; though the GOP so thoroughly fucked up the legislative process on it that as of now I have no clue what we actually got from what was actually passed).
The current means of "curing" cancer is to poison the cells that have cancer, which sometimes mean poisoning all of your cells and hoping the ones with cancer are more susceptible to the poison. If they die before you do, you are cured. If not, well, then you "died of cancer".
The actual cure for cancer would involve making the damaged DNA not be damaged any more. But it's not just the DNA, it's also the biological nanomachines that replicate and repair the DNA.
Personally I don't think it's impossible. But the difference between the current medicine and that kind of medicine is like the difference between splashing a bucket of paint on a wall and rendering Avatar in real-time.
We are as da Vinci in the middle ages, all imagination and no concept of technology, drawing pictures of flying machines made of sticks and sack-cloth with all the aerodynamic efficiency of a mid-air collision. The real things may be centuries off. Or maybe decades, if technology has taught us anything about accelerating technological change, and if greed hasn't so crippled the medical-research industry that it prefers maximizing long-term profit from poison to actually finding a cure.
Wiktionary is a dictionary. Which means that any discussion of the word beyond its definition and usage is not needed there. Articles on the history and social effect of the creation of the word deserve to be in Wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
And, thanks to the technological advancements represented by the parking meter, just 25 short years later, to the day, we had the laser.
TJX is liable. There's no question of that. But not for an attractive nuisance. Merely for negligence in disclosing valuable information entrusted to them.
The reason that happens is that people moving and requesting new accounts happens thousands of times a day, so banks consider it much more costly to vet those activities than to chase down the few frauds who slip into line.
And they really, truly, don't give a flying fuck how much it costs you to clear up anything that doesn't directly involve them. It doesn't enter into their forecasts, and they don't waste time agonizing over it. They're too busy analyzing politicians for malleability, because stopping regulation earns them a 400-1000% ROI.
Report the fraud to the police. They will ask a judge, nicely, to look into the "private" data, and then they will arrest, try, convict, and punish the perpetrator.
That is, if it's above the baseline for their enforcement budget for the year, and they don't have something serious to deal with.
But you can only do that if it's still costing you money.
Once the credit-card company comped your account, you no longer had a case, but they did, so it's their concern, not yours.
But watch all your other financial accounts; if your identity really was stolen, and it's not just a case of someone having your credit card number and using it on a website that doesn't actually check any identification, then you might see people opening bank accounts, applying for loans, starting businesses, etc. under your name.
That's not attractive nuisance. An attractive nuisance is something that is inviting but dangerous to children, like an unfenced swimming pool or a broken swingset. A pile of gold may be inviting, but it's not dangerous. And attractive nuisance isn't a mitigating factor in charges against the child, it's a charge against the person who left the nuisance where it could do harm to the child.
Stealing others' property is never excused by "they should have locked it up" arguments. Nor is hacking into others' computers.
Maybe if certain people hadn't shipped millions of jobs to sweatshop countries we wouldn't have "too many" college graduates chasing after shit-work jobs now.
And that's a grave mistake. If you don't actually know how the money is moved, you can't know what the forces on it are, or what sort of uncertainties there are, even in something carried to exact precision.
So we should continue subsidizing meaningless attempts to educate people who are at college for the frat parties just because it's the "American Dream?"
There are thousands of technical and trade schools in the U.S. They just aren't generally government-funded.
I browsed it using Firefox, and it bitched about having to load certain fonts, and then rendered several glyphs as black rectangles.
Fuzzy PNGs would have been an improvement.
Only small ones, like "a^n + b^n = c^n, n > 2"...
Seriously?
What proportion of the web-browsing public do you estimate will ever touch a page with a single div of MathML on it?
When it reaches 1/50, Microsoft will probably consider adding support. Then probably forget about it.
When phones are capable of running it, it might start to catch on again.
Actually, my Nexus One does pretty good with 3D graphics, but the apps are pretty simplified. Having them be fully interactive with most of the information transfer occurring over the data link would bog it down to a small fraction of an FPS.
So the 2-D click-and-wait model still makes the most sense for the machinery that's gaining market share the fastest.
That renders as "0th post" in my browser.
How do I submit a bug report?
Or shall I just flame-shame you into fixing it?
Think stress test, not nominal.
"fairly modern browser here at work (IE7)"
1. IE ('nuff sed for many)
2. Not the latest rev, certainly not later than the HTML5 standard.
3. Microsoft has made noises yet again about never actually standardizing per the standard.
If your point is that you want a quill pen to be able to browse the web with 100% functionality, then you need to sharpen your point.
it's a shame that B33th0ven never had anything like this. It's my theory he went deaf from absent-mindedly poking himself in the ear with a quill.
Have they asked Aquaman to text him?
This, kinda lame.
The Gundam mecha model (jpeg), however, looks fucking awesome.
I wonder if they'd care to post the names, birth dates, family trees, and work and school histories of everyone who attends the meeting to their own website.
Facebook is actually kind of suck for "staying in touch". It's more of an automated interleaver of blogs, with public chatrooms attached to each post.
IM is quite a bit better for personal dealings. Email can make up for any time you're not both online.
Someone should take a picture of the meeting and post it on the web.
Uh-huh. And where are the "open source" community going to get the money to pay for the clinical trials? How many in this community are willing to do thousands of pro-bono hours of legal paperwork just to get a trial noticed by the FDA? This isn't like writing a new search tool. Your suck can't languish on SourceForge for years, baiting people into corrupting their filesystems while you're off dealing with something else. Your product has to be tested on real human beings, after reams of other data has been produced.
I don't mind big pharma companies owning their stuff. I do mind that they charge way more than it cost to develop. And it should be illegal to spend more on advertising than they do on development just to create false competitive pressure to keep the prices high. And I'm pretty sure that some of the things they do in terms of fixing prices in various nations are illegal, but nobody's actually doing anything concrete about it (although, iirc, this was one of the points in one of the healthcare bills being voted on; though the GOP so thoroughly fucked up the legislative process on it that as of now I have no clue what we actually got from what was actually passed).
The current means of "curing" cancer is to poison the cells that have cancer, which sometimes mean poisoning all of your cells and hoping the ones with cancer are more susceptible to the poison. If they die before you do, you are cured. If not, well, then you "died of cancer".
The actual cure for cancer would involve making the damaged DNA not be damaged any more. But it's not just the DNA, it's also the biological nanomachines that replicate and repair the DNA.
Personally I don't think it's impossible. But the difference between the current medicine and that kind of medicine is like the difference between splashing a bucket of paint on a wall and rendering Avatar in real-time.
We are as da Vinci in the middle ages, all imagination and no concept of technology, drawing pictures of flying machines made of sticks and sack-cloth with all the aerodynamic efficiency of a mid-air collision. The real things may be centuries off. Or maybe decades, if technology has taught us anything about accelerating technological change, and if greed hasn't so crippled the medical-research industry that it prefers maximizing long-term profit from poison to actually finding a cure.
Wiktionary is a dictionary. Which means that any discussion of the word beyond its definition and usage is not needed there. Articles on the history and social effect of the creation of the word deserve to be in Wikipedia.