We might need to invent new insults for these bootlickers. And that's what they really are: Bootlickers. They're facilitating the worst sort of landlord and employer abuse to grub some money for themselves. "Swine" does not seem a strong enough word.
People: Just because there are fewer parts to break doesn't mean there are no parts that need maintenance due to wear. A chassis lube should have been performed (to include suspension parts) at leas 5-7 times in that 70,000 miles, at any one of which the technician would have noted the rust. It was good of them to split the cost on repairs given that the owner of the car made the damage vastly worse because he failed to maintain it.
But, I don't know that I've ever heard of any other car dealer or manufacturer requiring some sort of omerta in any of the many bajillions of previous analogous situations where a dealership just decided to eat part of the cost of a repair for customer goodwill. It seems like they'd want just the opposite: For you to brag to your friends how awesome it was that Tesla bailed your negligent ass out to the tune of nearly $1600.
This is a pilot--first of its kind. It might herald a whole new era for the human race! Or it might not. We'll need many decades of work and repetitions of this study, and studies that grow forth from what we learn here, to know if this is truly a viable technology, or if this study is merely a fluke.
This is also a great motivator for ISPs to participate in Netflix's CoLo program, where they lease space inside an ISP's network and install gear that their customers stream netflix from, inside the ISP's network, so as to avoid racking up high peering charges for the ISP.
...At some point, having a password exposed one place will make it ineligible to be a password--anywhere, for anyone. I'm sure that won't be too massive of a pain in the ass. Not at all.
...Obvious question is, are they going to also forbid any other passwords that have ever been leaked elsewhere? And what happens when every major site has been compromised and all its accounts shared online? Will every password from our past life suddenly be verboten, everywhere? That seems... pretty unworkable.
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
Loser pays would allow the already-stacked-in-the-favor-of-big-corporations legal system to be be used to punish people more than it already is. For example, loser pays instantly encourages any litigant with deep pockets to delay for years--decades even--to bleed the other party dry. Then, once they give up? Why, they get sued for legal fees.
Unless your goal is to lock John Q. Public out of the court system to seek redress of his grievances, this idea is unworkable.
Really, these sorts of "gun to the head" agreements should simply be made unenforceable. No, you can't actually get people to "agree" to handing over a spare kidney to you by slipping that requirement into paragraph 2,532 on page 845 of a 9,000 page document, and companies shouldn't be able to slip other onerous language in there either. The simplest solution is for courts to require actually-informed consent when asked to enforce a contract, and refuse to enforce "click-through" contracts, because those contracts do not involve informed consent.
Because a contract without informed consent isn't really a contract. And, no, presenting a 10,000 paragraphs document of legalese to a consumer isn't "informed" consent. Those agreements are written so as to confound understanding by anyone BUT a lawyer, and even then, lawyers will often haggle over the meaning of phrases based on the positions of punctuation. By definition, then, there can be no informed consent.
I've thought it would be an unbelievably valuable idea to start a fake conservative blog to farm email lists of gullible dopes. I see that Scott Walker was ahead of me on this count. Well played, Herr Walker... well played.
You're looking at it backwards: The elderly have better passwords because the things they do have passwords to are vital to their survival. That is, their online banking, brokerage, pension, insurance company, medicare, social security. And unlike millennials, elderly are keenly aware of how crucial keeping control of their money is to their independence and personal security.
Nothing more than an exercise of a monopoly, protecting its cash cow--leveraging that monopoly, possibly illegally, to squeeze more money out of customers at the threat of making the services they're paying for useless.
I can burn 150 GB just watching netflix. What a joke.
Oh good! They'll dumb-down the trending news stories to appease whining conservatives who can't cope with having their insane beliefs that Hillary murdered Vince Foster with a sharpened high-hell shoe and that Bill founded the KKK using a time-machine and some pot he had left over from college not "Trending" because the goofball stories aren't corroborated by any known, credible press organizations.
I don't know what "left" you were a part of, but I've never in my life wanted (or intended) to control how anybody thinks. Be as prejudiced as you like! But god so help you if you attempt to act on your prejudice, say by enacting laws to enshrine that prejudice into statutes that we all have to follow. Then I will come down on you like the hammer of Thor.
So: Think, whatever you want. Be as prejudiced and hateful as you like! But if you choose to act on that, yeah, I've got a huge problem with that.
Thoughts don't really matter. Actions? They matter.
SO I guess we can just close the book completely on the notion of there being a gun-related problem in the United States. Hooray! The system works!/sarcasm
The article is from Germany, you fucking twit.
Yep! And as we all know, Germany has their own private Internet, not accessible from the United States! So you're 100% correct./sarcasm
SO I guess we can just close the book completely on the notion of there being a gun-related problem in the United States. Hooray! The system works!/sarcasm
They also go after google because it's the main source of headaches for people with dated/inaccurate/slanderous information out there about them.
Consider: If you publish a web-site attacking me as the world's biggest jerk, it only really matters if people can find it. It's sort of the same way you can slander someone in the forest and never get sued. Slander is still actionable when spoken in a forest, but since nobody is around to hear it, witness it, and testify in court to the slander, you're pretty much in the clear. (Also, because nobody heard the slander, there wasn't any real damage done.)
But it's the same notion here: When it comes to slanderous, out of date, or just plain false information, Google operates like a white pages for slander. Which is why they're the target of the laws.
I'm really tired of this shit. work a job for a bit, then get laid off and be off for months if not longer. for now until I die, it will probably be like this.
FFS, isn't it obvious: Leave Sillicon Valley and run for your life! The obscene cost of living leads to sky-high wages which means that when a small company hits a speed bump, mathematics requires them to dump staff much much faster than it would in a market where, say, a VMware admin (not architect, but admin) makes a salary more reasonable than the $140k that seems to be the floor for that role out there. For much of the United States, that's like 35-40% premium.
Move someplace less "trendy," and more "stable," and you'll find your job disappearing far less often. Besides the dot-com bust, I've never once lost a job I didn't want to lose. And even that dot-com situation wasn't really my fault: Our company restated earnings and laid off thousands at the same time Arthur Andersen went under in Chicago, so I was competing with people 20 years older than me with 20 years more experience, and the only offer I fielded was for like $25k--take it or leave it!--so I left. Moved to less trendy, less exciting Indianapolis, and have been employed ever since. Cost of living is low, and I still make a good six figure salary--which goes a helluva lot further than $140k goes in the Valley.
This was tried 200 years ago, it did not stop the rise of the machines, the mill owners became very wealthy. However: I do agree that increasing automation will cause large social problems, I don't know how to deal with them, but we need to go into this with our eyes open not shut.
There are two options, both start with the letter "G":
That's not how Congress rolls. They refuse to take personal responsibility for everything and they have the authority to make someone else pay for their incompetence and/or corruption.
To be frank however, I cannot see any sane reason why our elected officials are not using official government email accounts supported by official government IT workers. It's not like congress doesn't know where to find the money to do it. Why on Earth they would be using Yahoo accounts while on the job is a mystery without a responsible answer.
Although I agree people should be more careful what they click on, it's grossly irresponsible that the CIO of the House of Representatives didn't already have access to Yahoo Mail blocked--it's been a known conduit for this stuff for years precisely because their filtering is so weak. My opinion? A message containing a harmful URL shouldn't get through. There are a myriad of spam services/products/filters that can deliver this type of feature... Why on earth isn't Yahoo running one of them?
Utter nonsense: Anonymity is a requirement for true free speech. Much of the muckraking done to start the American Revolution was done anonymously because the authors of the papers didn't want to be hung by British loyalists. Ditto France. Ditto most major popular revolutions in truly oppressive countries: The real "thought leaders" publish anonymously to keep themselves alive.
"Free speech" is meaningless if there isn't a way to publish something without your name on it--requiring a "real name" for someone's expression to be considered valid negates free speech because it creates a weapon for the powerful to punish people with the "wrong" opinion. Yes, part of free speech is taking responsibility for what you've said, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for that to include the concept that you should be willing to be executed or murdered for publishing your anti-government opinion, and if you're not, you're too much of a pussy for your opinion to matter.
Slashdot Mirror
We might need to invent new insults for these bootlickers. And that's what they really are: Bootlickers. They're facilitating the worst sort of landlord and employer abuse to grub some money for themselves. "Swine" does not seem a strong enough word.
Ahem.... Not universally true: Some of us aren't running stock suspension, and do need to lubricate.
People: Just because there are fewer parts to break doesn't mean there are no parts that need maintenance due to wear. A chassis lube should have been performed (to include suspension parts) at leas 5-7 times in that 70,000 miles, at any one of which the technician would have noted the rust. It was good of them to split the cost on repairs given that the owner of the car made the damage vastly worse because he failed to maintain it.
But, I don't know that I've ever heard of any other car dealer or manufacturer requiring some sort of omerta in any of the many bajillions of previous analogous situations where a dealership just decided to eat part of the cost of a repair for customer goodwill. It seems like they'd want just the opposite: For you to brag to your friends how awesome it was that Tesla bailed your negligent ass out to the tune of nearly $1600.
This is a pilot--first of its kind. It might herald a whole new era for the human race! Or it might not. We'll need many decades of work and repetitions of this study, and studies that grow forth from what we learn here, to know if this is truly a viable technology, or if this study is merely a fluke.
This is also a great motivator for ISPs to participate in Netflix's CoLo program, where they lease space inside an ISP's network and install gear that their customers stream netflix from, inside the ISP's network, so as to avoid racking up high peering charges for the ISP.
...At some point, having a password exposed one place will make it ineligible to be a password--anywhere, for anyone. I'm sure that won't be too massive of a pain in the ass. Not at all.
...Obvious question is, are they going to also forbid any other passwords that have ever been leaked elsewhere? And what happens when every major site has been compromised and all its accounts shared online? Will every password from our past life suddenly be verboten, everywhere? That seems... pretty unworkable.
Loser pays would tamp down on a lot of people who use the process to punish people.
Loser pays would allow the already-stacked-in-the-favor-of-big-corporations legal system to be be used to punish people more than it already is. For example, loser pays instantly encourages any litigant with deep pockets to delay for years--decades even--to bleed the other party dry. Then, once they give up? Why, they get sued for legal fees.
Unless your goal is to lock John Q. Public out of the court system to seek redress of his grievances, this idea is unworkable.
Tears. No words.
They should have sent a poet.
"Pass a law that legitimizes what we're doing so we can stop breaking the law!"
Can we prosecute a few of these scumbags? Just an idea.
Really, these sorts of "gun to the head" agreements should simply be made unenforceable. No, you can't actually get people to "agree" to handing over a spare kidney to you by slipping that requirement into paragraph 2,532 on page 845 of a 9,000 page document, and companies shouldn't be able to slip other onerous language in there either. The simplest solution is for courts to require actually-informed consent when asked to enforce a contract, and refuse to enforce "click-through" contracts, because those contracts do not involve informed consent.
Because a contract without informed consent isn't really a contract. And, no, presenting a 10,000 paragraphs document of legalese to a consumer isn't "informed" consent. Those agreements are written so as to confound understanding by anyone BUT a lawyer, and even then, lawyers will often haggle over the meaning of phrases based on the positions of punctuation. By definition, then, there can be no informed consent.
I've thought it would be an unbelievably valuable idea to start a fake conservative blog to farm email lists of gullible dopes. I see that Scott Walker was ahead of me on this count. Well played, Herr Walker... well played.
You're looking at it backwards: The elderly have better passwords because the things they do have passwords to are vital to their survival. That is, their online banking, brokerage, pension, insurance company, medicare, social security. And unlike millennials, elderly are keenly aware of how crucial keeping control of their money is to their independence and personal security.
Nothing more than an exercise of a monopoly, protecting its cash cow--leveraging that monopoly, possibly illegally, to squeeze more money out of customers at the threat of making the services they're paying for useless.
I can burn 150 GB just watching netflix. What a joke.
Anyone who thinks "nothing's changed" for 200 years is an idiot.
Oh good! They'll dumb-down the trending news stories to appease whining conservatives who can't cope with having their insane beliefs that Hillary murdered Vince Foster with a sharpened high-hell shoe and that Bill founded the KKK using a time-machine and some pot he had left over from college not "Trending" because the goofball stories aren't corroborated by any known, credible press organizations.
I don't know what "left" you were a part of, but I've never in my life wanted (or intended) to control how anybody thinks. Be as prejudiced as you like! But god so help you if you attempt to act on your prejudice, say by enacting laws to enshrine that prejudice into statutes that we all have to follow. Then I will come down on you like the hammer of Thor.
So: Think, whatever you want. Be as prejudiced and hateful as you like! But if you choose to act on that, yeah, I've got a huge problem with that.
Thoughts don't really matter. Actions? They matter.
SO I guess we can just close the book completely on the notion of there being a gun-related problem in the United States. Hooray! The system works! /sarcasm
The article is from Germany, you fucking twit.
Yep! And as we all know, Germany has their own private Internet, not accessible from the United States! So you're 100% correct. /sarcasm
SO I guess we can just close the book completely on the notion of there being a gun-related problem in the United States. Hooray! The system works! /sarcasm
They also go after google because it's the main source of headaches for people with dated/inaccurate/slanderous information out there about them.
Consider: If you publish a web-site attacking me as the world's biggest jerk, it only really matters if people can find it. It's sort of the same way you can slander someone in the forest and never get sued. Slander is still actionable when spoken in a forest, but since nobody is around to hear it, witness it, and testify in court to the slander, you're pretty much in the clear. (Also, because nobody heard the slander, there wasn't any real damage done.)
But it's the same notion here: When it comes to slanderous, out of date, or just plain false information, Google operates like a white pages for slander. Which is why they're the target of the laws.
FFS, isn't it obvious: Leave Sillicon Valley and run for your life! The obscene cost of living leads to sky-high wages which means that when a small company hits a speed bump, mathematics requires them to dump staff much much faster than it would in a market where, say, a VMware admin (not architect, but admin) makes a salary more reasonable than the $140k that seems to be the floor for that role out there. For much of the United States, that's like 35-40% premium.
Move someplace less "trendy," and more "stable," and you'll find your job disappearing far less often. Besides the dot-com bust, I've never once lost a job I didn't want to lose. And even that dot-com situation wasn't really my fault: Our company restated earnings and laid off thousands at the same time Arthur Andersen went under in Chicago, so I was competing with people 20 years older than me with 20 years more experience, and the only offer I fielded was for like $25k--take it or leave it!--so I left. Moved to less trendy, less exciting Indianapolis, and have been employed ever since. Cost of living is low, and I still make a good six figure salary--which goes a helluva lot further than $140k goes in the Valley.
A revolution is brewing.
This was tried 200 years ago, it did not stop the rise of the machines, the mill owners became very wealthy. However: I do agree that increasing automation will cause large social problems, I don't know how to deal with them, but we need to go into this with our eyes open not shut.
There are two options, both start with the letter "G":
1) Guaranteed Basic Income
2) Guillotine
Although I agree people should be more careful what they click on, it's grossly irresponsible that the CIO of the House of Representatives didn't already have access to Yahoo Mail blocked--it's been a known conduit for this stuff for years precisely because their filtering is so weak. My opinion? A message containing a harmful URL shouldn't get through. There are a myriad of spam services/products/filters that can deliver this type of feature... Why on earth isn't Yahoo running one of them?
Trains May Soon Come Equipped With Debris-Zapping Lasers
That is... frickin awesome! How do I get a ticket? Can I work the laser?
Utter nonsense: Anonymity is a requirement for true free speech. Much of the muckraking done to start the American Revolution was done anonymously because the authors of the papers didn't want to be hung by British loyalists. Ditto France. Ditto most major popular revolutions in truly oppressive countries: The real "thought leaders" publish anonymously to keep themselves alive.
"Free speech" is meaningless if there isn't a way to publish something without your name on it--requiring a "real name" for someone's expression to be considered valid negates free speech because it creates a weapon for the powerful to punish people with the "wrong" opinion. Yes, part of free speech is taking responsibility for what you've said, but I'm not sure it's reasonable for that to include the concept that you should be willing to be executed or murdered for publishing your anti-government opinion, and if you're not, you're too much of a pussy for your opinion to matter.