They may have to provide this data as well and may have already provided it. Just because part of something is in dispute doesn't mean everything is in dispute. This is a silly strawman.
The government does not force them to keep this data. It's a contracting requirement if you do business with the government. You can opt out by not selling to the government. It's no different than the government insisting, as part of their contracts, to see quality control data for anchor chain manufacturing if they're going to buy your anchor chain. You're not obligated to keep quality control data. But once you sign the contract, you've voluntarily agreed to do so.
And all they have to do is provide those numbers. There isn't a bar being set here. You just have to provide the information. It's like being told you're allowed to rob a bank as long as you sign the bank robbery register. Yet they are pushing back even though they have a legal obligation based on contracts that they entered voluntarily.
Well a short sale is pretty risky for most investors. Unlimited losses are kind of scary. If you want to short something and you're not highly experienced, look to buy puts. At least that keeps a lid on maximum losses.
No, I think this is a much more complicated legal case to prove. If I write a ransomware and you install it on your company's computer and the ransomware demands payment in bitcoin, one can prove that (a) I wrote the ransomware, (b) You installed in your company's computer. But I can argue that I didn't know that you were going to actually install it. And you can argue that I tricked you into installing it. So the only way to prove the case is to follow the money which may turn out to be nearly impossible. Now it's much easier. I wrote the ransomware, it's on your company's computers, I'm guilty.
As others have pointed out, you would have been prosecuted under other laws. But if you were really good at Ransomware maybe you could find one area of the crime that prosecutors couldn't prove and the you could spend most of your ill-gotten gains on a legal defense. You would be no better off, a defense lawyer would make out well, your victims would be out money, and the state would have an expensive prosecution bill. Now they have a much easier case and can just arrest you right away.
I think people don't understand the legal system very well. In order to secure a conviction, a prosecutor has to prove all aspects of the crime. Ransomware does involve other crimes but those may have hard elements to prove. For example it wouldn't be money laundering if somebody paid taxes on the income! Others point out that deceptive installation is installing without permission, but you have to *prove* that the user was deceived. Maybe they weren't. Maybe they knew it was ransomware and were pissed off at their employer. So there are many avenues to mount a defense. Why are we against criminalizing such bad behavior directly. Isn't this better than going out looking for something to charge somebody with. Probably makes the prosecution easier and less burdensome. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer. I don't live in California and I'm not a prosecutor. Other disclaimers as necessary.
Don't let a bank have custody of your money. Keep it safe under your mattress. For all but the security professionals, cloud storage is the most secure option available. Some super rich people keep bars of gold in their homes but for everybody else a bank account is the right place to store money.
If we really want to invest in making cities more livable and in reducing traffic we could employ grade separation. Have all of the sidewalks elevated so pedestrians don't mix with traffic. Normally this is done in a craptastic way making pedestrians go up and down stairs at each intersection. But if sidewalks were uniformly elevated and there were entrances at the elevated level cities would be better for cars and people.
Cabs and shared rides (I assume similar to UberPool) are a point-to-point service. No walking at either end. And 2.7 minute wait is much better than the average wait for a bus/subway. Plus with apps you know when the car is arriving so you can wait inside until the car is a minute or so away. With the bus you have to stand out in the weather for an unpredictable amount of time. Of course buses could also be improved this way. Better route maps (Google Maps does a good job) and real-time updates on when the bus is coming. Also buses get overcrowded and people have to stand up crushed next to each other. Even with a shared ride you're guaranteed a seat. What we're really talking about here are four-person buses (maybe five or six-person once they are self-driving) that are way more convenient. So this really is like the bus without all of the problems of the bus.
Any additional sharing of rides will result in less vehicles on the road. But also no more driving around looking for a parking space so there is a double benefit. If we could get rid of half of the parking lots on the cities and do something more productive with them, we would live in a much different world. I've heard that 65% of the surface area of Los Angeles is dedicated to cars.
But Apple *could* include a feature that you have to agree that you're a passenger before using this in motion. Many other apps do include such a capability. Even Pokemon Go has such a feature. The person suing here is *not* the one who used FaceTime while driving but rather the family of the people he killed.
Unlikely. They would operate in an unsafe way, pay massive salaries to their owners, then go bankrupt with the owners keeping the profits and the costs pushed onto the tax payers. That's the thing. Government can't really "get out" of these industries because if a bad actor causes terrible damage and goes bankrupt there's nobody else to clean up the mess. And since the government and therefore the tax payers are going to get stuck with the bill, it's pretty reasonable that they have a say in how things operate.
Since you seem to know more about this than the average person here, how do they prevent generating power at higher wind speeds. Do they apply a mechanical brake? Turn the paddles away from the wind?
How about Southwest gave me $900 to take an earlier, non-stop flight instead of the connection on which I was originally scheduled. Would you take that deal? Many times you're only talking about an hour. If I'm coming home from a business trip on a Friday night and my family is going to be asleep anyway when I get home, what's an hour for a half a grand or so? Who wouldn't take it. Sure if you're on the *outbound* segment you probably don't want to do this. Heck one time, though, I had a Monday morning flight to see a customer. They cancelled on me but I had a Tuesday afternoon meeting in the same city. It was cheaper to just go on my original itinerary than change so I showed up at the airport. Flight was overbooked and I got paid to leave on a Tuesday morning instead. There are many reasons to accept this and usually the airlines only need one or two people to take the deal so there's always somebody who is happy for the change.
Except that airlines are explicitly exempted from some of these rules in exchange for their being willing to accommodate passengers who have extenuating circumstances. There's nothing to be upset about here. The article is flamebait and you took it.
Slashdot Mirror
No, the reason that it's tempered is so that, if it breaks in an accident, sharp shards don't cut you to death!
They may have to provide this data as well and may have already provided it. Just because part of something is in dispute doesn't mean everything is in dispute. This is a silly strawman.
The government does not force them to keep this data. It's a contracting requirement if you do business with the government. You can opt out by not selling to the government. It's no different than the government insisting, as part of their contracts, to see quality control data for anchor chain manufacturing if they're going to buy your anchor chain. You're not obligated to keep quality control data. But once you sign the contract, you've voluntarily agreed to do so.
And all they have to do is provide those numbers. There isn't a bar being set here. You just have to provide the information. It's like being told you're allowed to rob a bank as long as you sign the bank robbery register. Yet they are pushing back even though they have a legal obligation based on contracts that they entered voluntarily.
Because Google signed a contract agreeing to do so! It shouldn't take a court order to enforce a contract. If they sign it they should fulfill it.
Well a short sale is pretty risky for most investors. Unlimited losses are kind of scary. If you want to short something and you're not highly experienced, look to buy puts. At least that keeps a lid on maximum losses.
No, I think this is a much more complicated legal case to prove. If I write a ransomware and you install it on your company's computer and the ransomware demands payment in bitcoin, one can prove that (a) I wrote the ransomware, (b) You installed in your company's computer. But I can argue that I didn't know that you were going to actually install it. And you can argue that I tricked you into installing it. So the only way to prove the case is to follow the money which may turn out to be nearly impossible. Now it's much easier. I wrote the ransomware, it's on your company's computers, I'm guilty.
As others have pointed out, you would have been prosecuted under other laws. But if you were really good at Ransomware maybe you could find one area of the crime that prosecutors couldn't prove and the you could spend most of your ill-gotten gains on a legal defense. You would be no better off, a defense lawyer would make out well, your victims would be out money, and the state would have an expensive prosecution bill. Now they have a much easier case and can just arrest you right away.
I think people don't understand the legal system very well. In order to secure a conviction, a prosecutor has to prove all aspects of the crime. Ransomware does involve other crimes but those may have hard elements to prove. For example it wouldn't be money laundering if somebody paid taxes on the income! Others point out that deceptive installation is installing without permission, but you have to *prove* that the user was deceived. Maybe they weren't. Maybe they knew it was ransomware and were pissed off at their employer. So there are many avenues to mount a defense. Why are we against criminalizing such bad behavior directly. Isn't this better than going out looking for something to charge somebody with. Probably makes the prosecution easier and less burdensome. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not your lawyer. I don't live in California and I'm not a prosecutor. Other disclaimers as necessary.
Don't let a bank have custody of your money. Keep it safe under your mattress. For all but the security professionals, cloud storage is the most secure option available. Some super rich people keep bars of gold in their homes but for everybody else a bank account is the right place to store money.
If we really want to invest in making cities more livable and in reducing traffic we could employ grade separation. Have all of the sidewalks elevated so pedestrians don't mix with traffic. Normally this is done in a craptastic way making pedestrians go up and down stairs at each intersection. But if sidewalks were uniformly elevated and there were entrances at the elevated level cities would be better for cars and people.
I don't think they've cost anywhere near this ever since Uber came along. In fact I think they've already lost 50% of their value.
Cabs and shared rides (I assume similar to UberPool) are a point-to-point service. No walking at either end. And 2.7 minute wait is much better than the average wait for a bus/subway. Plus with apps you know when the car is arriving so you can wait inside until the car is a minute or so away. With the bus you have to stand out in the weather for an unpredictable amount of time. Of course buses could also be improved this way. Better route maps (Google Maps does a good job) and real-time updates on when the bus is coming. Also buses get overcrowded and people have to stand up crushed next to each other. Even with a shared ride you're guaranteed a seat. What we're really talking about here are four-person buses (maybe five or six-person once they are self-driving) that are way more convenient. So this really is like the bus without all of the problems of the bus.
Any additional sharing of rides will result in less vehicles on the road. But also no more driving around looking for a parking space so there is a double benefit. If we could get rid of half of the parking lots on the cities and do something more productive with them, we would live in a much different world. I've heard that 65% of the surface area of Los Angeles is dedicated to cars.
Uber drivers can and will give you a low rating if you fart in their car!
But that does nothing for his victims who are the ones suing.
Many apps make you click on a button that says "I'm a passenger" if the GPS detects you are using it in motion..
But Apple *could* include a feature that you have to agree that you're a passenger before using this in motion. Many other apps do include such a capability. Even Pokemon Go has such a feature. The person suing here is *not* the one who used FaceTime while driving but rather the family of the people he killed.
Burning dung may be stinky but it's carbon-neutral!
Unlikely. They would operate in an unsafe way, pay massive salaries to their owners, then go bankrupt with the owners keeping the profits and the costs pushed onto the tax payers. That's the thing. Government can't really "get out" of these industries because if a bad actor causes terrible damage and goes bankrupt there's nobody else to clean up the mess. And since the government and therefore the tax payers are going to get stuck with the bill, it's pretty reasonable that they have a say in how things operate.
The one time that I really want to moderate and all of my points are expired. +1
Since you seem to know more about this than the average person here, how do they prevent generating power at higher wind speeds. Do they apply a mechanical brake? Turn the paddles away from the wind?
How about Southwest gave me $900 to take an earlier, non-stop flight instead of the connection on which I was originally scheduled. Would you take that deal? Many times you're only talking about an hour. If I'm coming home from a business trip on a Friday night and my family is going to be asleep anyway when I get home, what's an hour for a half a grand or so? Who wouldn't take it. Sure if you're on the *outbound* segment you probably don't want to do this. Heck one time, though, I had a Monday morning flight to see a customer. They cancelled on me but I had a Tuesday afternoon meeting in the same city. It was cheaper to just go on my original itinerary than change so I showed up at the airport. Flight was overbooked and I got paid to leave on a Tuesday morning instead. There are many reasons to accept this and usually the airlines only need one or two people to take the deal so there's always somebody who is happy for the change.
MagPlug!
Except that airlines are explicitly exempted from some of these rules in exchange for their being willing to accommodate passengers who have extenuating circumstances. There's nothing to be upset about here. The article is flamebait and you took it.