So, if Amazon isn't doing anything illegal by paying low/no taxes, are they not then also "smart"? Wouldn't they be "dumb" to pay taxes that aren't required of them?
That 1 BTC that costs $5,000 to mine is worth $13,000 USD at today's exchange rate. Good luck convincing anyone that that's a stupid investment, especially if they've already dumped the capital into mining gear.
Maybe a bit dishonest on the first one, but the second one seems like OP nailed the gist of the law. It's a little sketchy on the details, as BMI isn't measured in percentage, so a BMI of 18 isn't the same as 18% body fat, but the source link in OPs supplied article states BMI of 18, so we'll go with that. My gf, who is 5'8" and weighs 110 lbs has a BMI of 17ish, and she doesn't have an eating disorder, she's just naturally on the thin side and is far from looking anorexic or sickly. BMI is pretty much universally shunned as a horrible measurement of health (many athletes will find their BMI claiming that they're overweight as muscle weighs heavier than fat). So issues with this law (as it's explained in the links) would be 1) some healthy people will be denied employment in France based on a terrible measure of health, and 2) where is the max BMI range? Being overweight is *at least* as unhealthy as being underweight, so why aren't we worried about foisting that imagery unto impressionable children as well?
As to the first law, while it doesn't make it "illegal for a man to talk to women", it does seem to be saying that the law only applies to men catcalling women. What about men catcalling other men? What about women as the purveyors of harassment? This seems like a law designed for being targeted at people whom some people might want to slander and harass, rather than a law designed to solve actual problems in a fair way.
many men, both straight and gay, as well as many other individuals across the gender spectrum, like the colour pink; for her to suggest this is aimed at women is sexist and insensitive.
If a drone can fly in wirecutters they can fly in a gun, a knife, who knows what else.
If a drone can fly in any of those things, there's a real good chance that a human on the outside of the fence could simply throw those things over said fence. Or cut through the fence from the outside. This really isn't a drone problem, it's a lack of guards who care, or perhaps a lack of security cameras and staff to monitor them.
Right? It's literally "a method of misleading people on our network by outright blocking their connections or silently falsifying data on the wire". It's a patent on a MITM attack.
If you actually read, and try to track back to the source material, the summary is highly inaccurate.
There's been a lot of this going around in Slashdot lately and, frankly, it's starting to get annoying.
Is it the inaccurate summaries you're referring to, or the tracking back to the source material? Because neither of those things are recent to/., and I'm sure some of the site's regulars would consider both annoying...
For me, a lot of it comes down to time. If I decide I want to watch a movie, I don't really want to plan it out as an activity. I want to sit on my couch in something comfortable with a snack and take it in. What I don't want to do is: figure out when / where there is a showing that fits into my schedule; clothe myself appropriately for going out in public; transport myself to that location / find somewhere to park; stand in a line to be herded into a theatre; watch a half-hour worth of commercials (or try to show up after all the ads but risk not getting a good seat). As a side note, theatres should consider doing away with the front three or four rows: it's impossible to see the whole screen, it's uncomfortable to crane your neck in a manner that lets you even try to take in the whole thing, and forget about reading subtitles from that range. They'll happily take the same money from you as they would for any other ticked to sell you this horribly sub-standard "experience".
Your UID makes it look like you should remember the old days, but whatever. When I was growing up (80's - 90's) we didn't have cable television; we had an antenna on the roof that picked up the local ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX affiliates, plus the local CBC/CITY/other Canadian stations (grew up in a border town). We got the news from the local nightly news on whichever station, and didn't pay a thing for it, unless you count watching commercials as "paying". These days, we seem to be "paying" more for our news, in terms of ads and having our habits tracked and sold online, but *still* somehow we're getting less *actual* journalism.
it may depend on the site you're trying to save pictures from, but when I've had that issue in the past of not being able to right click>save image I've been able to bypass it by disabling javascript. ymmv
Google can only do so much. "Android" is an open-source project and OEMs build their own binaries to ship. Think of it like linux: if you're running linux, you're (likely) running one of a handful of distros; maybe it's debian. So there's a vuln found in the linux kernel and the kernel maintainers patch it. But you'll need to wait for the debian maintainers to push out their own version of the patched kernel, and if they don't do that in a timely manner then that certainly doesn't reflect back on the kernel maintainers. Same situation here - Samsung, LG, et al will build their own Android "distros" to install on their devices, so when there's an patch/update/upgrade each vendor has to build a new version with those fixes and push it out to their customers. Google has no control over that. And unless Google tries to release Android under a license with terms forcing OEMs to keep their systems updated for X years after release, I'm not sure there's anything Google could actually do about this problem.
Being a passenger in any vehicle is risky? This could be used on a plane or a boat or from the passenger seat while someone else is driving. You can't sue Budweiser for every DUI accident, which makes sense because no matter how drunk I am on shitty American piss-water, it can't be Anheuser-Busch's fault that I broke the law and just happened to do so while using their product. Same rules need to apply here; Snapchat already tells you in the TOS that every user agrees to that you should use the app safely and responsibly, which likely includes DON'T DO DANGEROUS ILLEGAL THINGS LIKE TRY TO TAKE SELFIES WHILE DRIVING TWICE THE POSTED LIMIT. She was already breaking distracted driving and speeding laws, you can't honestly hold Snapchat any more responsible than Apple for making a phone that you can use to distract you while driving.
Can you point us to any proof that a trophy for speed exists? I can't find any information indicating that this trophy actually exists other than info on this lawsuit saying the teen was trying to get it. Unless anyone can prove that this trophy is real, or that snapchat is somehow encouraging people to drive over the speed limit then this looks pretty frivolous.
Yeah, totally. That pervert should just go use the men's washroom and stare at your son like a proper pedophile. Because if he goes into a washroom with your daughter, he might see...a closed door on the stall she's in. OH! He could try to look over or under the stall door! Surely no perverted females would ever follow your wife or daughters into a bathroom and think of the same thing! You've really thought this through!
I'm betting that they'll announce that they've "found" information on the phone that could have helped stop the Brussels attacks or something similar so that they can claim Apple's uncooperativeness cost lives and make some more emotional pleas the next time some corporation has the audacity to say no to the feds.
It happens in depressed areas too for similar reasons. I had to move away from friends and family in southern Ontario (Canada) when the economy was circling the drain. It wasn't that the area got too expensive, it was that even with as inexpensive as it was, you still needed some form of employment and the only things around were minimum-wage service-industry jobs, which just isn't my cup of tea. While I would have liked to stay, sometimes you've got to go where the money is, whether that means higher paying jobs or lower cost of living.
and cancer treatment for smokers is wrong; they chose to smoke, they should live with the consequences. sending paramedics to the scene of a car accident is wrong; they chose to drive, they have to accept the consequences. taking immodium is wrong; you chose to eat at chipotle...
Canada classifies guns into one of three categories: unrestricted, restricted, or banned. Unrestricted covers rifles and shotguns, as long as the barrel and overall gun length meet a minimum requirement, no large capacity magazines, and a few other restrictions. Handguns are restricted, as are a few long guns. Full-auto is banned. Anyone who wants to hunt is most likely to be using unrestricted firearms. These can be purchased by anyone with a Possession and Acquisition License, which you can obtain by taking a firearms safety course. Canada has no registry for unrestricted firearms, so the federal government has no way to track who owns them. There are separate courses for those who wish to acquire handguns, and there are much stricter laws governing carrying/storing/transporting restricted firearms.
These laws make sense here as Canada has a lot of wilderness and a pretty strong tradition of hunting. And they seem to be striking a decent balance, as we are on the lower end of gun violence stats.
Slashdot Mirror
So, if Amazon isn't doing anything illegal by paying low/no taxes, are they not then also "smart"? Wouldn't they be "dumb" to pay taxes that aren't required of them?
That 1 BTC that costs $5,000 to mine is worth $13,000 USD at today's exchange rate. Good luck convincing anyone that that's a stupid investment, especially if they've already dumped the capital into mining gear.
Maybe a bit dishonest on the first one, but the second one seems like OP nailed the gist of the law. It's a little sketchy on the details, as BMI isn't measured in percentage, so a BMI of 18 isn't the same as 18% body fat, but the source link in OPs supplied article states BMI of 18, so we'll go with that. My gf, who is 5'8" and weighs 110 lbs has a BMI of 17ish, and she doesn't have an eating disorder, she's just naturally on the thin side and is far from looking anorexic or sickly. BMI is pretty much universally shunned as a horrible measurement of health (many athletes will find their BMI claiming that they're overweight as muscle weighs heavier than fat). So issues with this law (as it's explained in the links) would be 1) some healthy people will be denied employment in France based on a terrible measure of health, and 2) where is the max BMI range? Being overweight is *at least* as unhealthy as being underweight, so why aren't we worried about foisting that imagery unto impressionable children as well?
As to the first law, while it doesn't make it "illegal for a man to talk to women", it does seem to be saying that the law only applies to men catcalling women. What about men catcalling other men? What about women as the purveyors of harassment? This seems like a law designed for being targeted at people whom some people might want to slander and harass, rather than a law designed to solve actual problems in a fair way.
many men, both straight and gay, as well as many other individuals across the gender spectrum, like the colour pink; for her to suggest this is aimed at women is sexist and insensitive.
citation needed
If a drone can fly in any of those things, there's a real good chance that a human on the outside of the fence could simply throw those things over said fence. Or cut through the fence from the outside. This really isn't a drone problem, it's a lack of guards who care, or perhaps a lack of security cameras and staff to monitor them.
Right? It's literally "a method of misleading people on our network by outright blocking their connections or silently falsifying data on the wire". It's a patent on a MITM attack.
Surely bringing up events from forty-five years ago will counter his point about being stuck in the past.
jesus, i always just thought that was a dark line; now you're telling me it's the scar from that time when my vagina healed?
Is it the inaccurate summaries you're referring to, or the tracking back to the source material? Because neither of those things are recent to /., and I'm sure some of the site's regulars would consider both annoying...
For me, a lot of it comes down to time. If I decide I want to watch a movie, I don't really want to plan it out as an activity. I want to sit on my couch in something comfortable with a snack and take it in. What I don't want to do is: figure out when / where there is a showing that fits into my schedule; clothe myself appropriately for going out in public; transport myself to that location / find somewhere to park; stand in a line to be herded into a theatre; watch a half-hour worth of commercials (or try to show up after all the ads but risk not getting a good seat). As a side note, theatres should consider doing away with the front three or four rows: it's impossible to see the whole screen, it's uncomfortable to crane your neck in a manner that lets you even try to take in the whole thing, and forget about reading subtitles from that range. They'll happily take the same money from you as they would for any other ticked to sell you this horribly sub-standard "experience".
NOBODY *plans* to upgrade to Windows 10. It just, sort of, *happens*.
Maybe we can throw on a pair of balanced XLRs for my monitors, too...
Your UID makes it look like you should remember the old days, but whatever. When I was growing up (80's - 90's) we didn't have cable television; we had an antenna on the roof that picked up the local ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX affiliates, plus the local CBC/CITY/other Canadian stations (grew up in a border town). We got the news from the local nightly news on whichever station, and didn't pay a thing for it, unless you count watching commercials as "paying". These days, we seem to be "paying" more for our news, in terms of ads and having our habits tracked and sold online, but *still* somehow we're getting less *actual* journalism.
I certainly can't, and I have no idea if anyone actually can, but I'm intrigued! When should I tune in to find out the answer?
it may depend on the site you're trying to save pictures from, but when I've had that issue in the past of not being able to right click>save image I've been able to bypass it by disabling javascript. ymmv
Google can only do so much. "Android" is an open-source project and OEMs build their own binaries to ship. Think of it like linux: if you're running linux, you're (likely) running one of a handful of distros; maybe it's debian. So there's a vuln found in the linux kernel and the kernel maintainers patch it. But you'll need to wait for the debian maintainers to push out their own version of the patched kernel, and if they don't do that in a timely manner then that certainly doesn't reflect back on the kernel maintainers. Same situation here - Samsung, LG, et al will build their own Android "distros" to install on their devices, so when there's an patch/update/upgrade each vendor has to build a new version with those fixes and push it out to their customers. Google has no control over that. And unless Google tries to release Android under a license with terms forcing OEMs to keep their systems updated for X years after release, I'm not sure there's anything Google could actually do about this problem.
Being a passenger in any vehicle is risky? This could be used on a plane or a boat or from the passenger seat while someone else is driving. You can't sue Budweiser for every DUI accident, which makes sense because no matter how drunk I am on shitty American piss-water, it can't be Anheuser-Busch's fault that I broke the law and just happened to do so while using their product. Same rules need to apply here; Snapchat already tells you in the TOS that every user agrees to that you should use the app safely and responsibly, which likely includes DON'T DO DANGEROUS ILLEGAL THINGS LIKE TRY TO TAKE SELFIES WHILE DRIVING TWICE THE POSTED LIMIT. She was already breaking distracted driving and speeding laws, you can't honestly hold Snapchat any more responsible than Apple for making a phone that you can use to distract you while driving.
Can you point us to any proof that a trophy for speed exists? I can't find any information indicating that this trophy actually exists other than info on this lawsuit saying the teen was trying to get it. Unless anyone can prove that this trophy is real, or that snapchat is somehow encouraging people to drive over the speed limit then this looks pretty frivolous.
Yeah, totally. That pervert should just go use the men's washroom and stare at your son like a proper pedophile. Because if he goes into a washroom with your daughter, he might see...a closed door on the stall she's in. OH! He could try to look over or under the stall door! Surely no perverted females would ever follow your wife or daughters into a bathroom and think of the same thing! You've really thought this through!
I'm betting that they'll announce that they've "found" information on the phone that could have helped stop the Brussels attacks or something similar so that they can claim Apple's uncooperativeness cost lives and make some more emotional pleas the next time some corporation has the audacity to say no to the feds.
It happens in depressed areas too for similar reasons. I had to move away from friends and family in southern Ontario (Canada) when the economy was circling the drain. It wasn't that the area got too expensive, it was that even with as inexpensive as it was, you still needed some form of employment and the only things around were minimum-wage service-industry jobs, which just isn't my cup of tea. While I would have liked to stay, sometimes you've got to go where the money is, whether that means higher paying jobs or lower cost of living.
and cancer treatment for smokers is wrong; they chose to smoke, they should live with the consequences. sending paramedics to the scene of a car accident is wrong; they chose to drive, they have to accept the consequences. taking immodium is wrong; you chose to eat at chipotle...
exactly. if they pass this, i'll just make sure the next phone i buy isn't available for sale in NYS.
Canada classifies guns into one of three categories: unrestricted, restricted, or banned. Unrestricted covers rifles and shotguns, as long as the barrel and overall gun length meet a minimum requirement, no large capacity magazines, and a few other restrictions. Handguns are restricted, as are a few long guns. Full-auto is banned. Anyone who wants to hunt is most likely to be using unrestricted firearms. These can be purchased by anyone with a Possession and Acquisition License, which you can obtain by taking a firearms safety course. Canada has no registry for unrestricted firearms, so the federal government has no way to track who owns them. There are separate courses for those who wish to acquire handguns, and there are much stricter laws governing carrying/storing/transporting restricted firearms.
These laws make sense here as Canada has a lot of wilderness and a pretty strong tradition of hunting. And they seem to be striking a decent balance, as we are on the lower end of gun violence stats.