He has a point that there is an opportunity cost. Whether it be the cost of owning the shares, or the cost of Amazon's infrastructure. Presumably Amazon cares (a lot!) about investors having confidence in the shares, or else nobody, not the shareholders, not the management, not anybody makes money.
"We're not talking about a company that is haemorrhaging money"
Well you only say that because its a 140 B company. But if investors suddenly decide this thing is never going to make money, it could suddenly be a 1B company. 126M loss in the context of a 1B company is huge. Until they actually make consistent money, who's to say how much this ship is worth? Could be worth nothing.
Depends if your aim is to have the most number of people on board quicker, or to have the flight ready to go quicker. Because getting 90% of the people on board doesn't actually help much, only having 100%. It's actually less comfortable for people to be on the aircraft waiting than to be in the waiting area.
If he'd claimed to be kicked off because he was black/white/gay or whatever, there'd be outrage. But because he was only exercising his free speech rights, people don't care that much.
Most people in this situation have no hope of knowing who did it. For example, I have 4 flatmates. If one of them does something like this, I would have no way of finding out which one it was. So its an utter waste of time. If I had kids at home, I'm sure they would all deny it too, like kids always do. If I had friends over, what am I going to ring my friends and accuse them? Ha!
It seems odd in so far as this precedent would seem to set up every application you ever buy for court audit to make sure it is absolutely as efficient as it possibly can be. If not, it could be using your electricity or draining your battery.
On the one hand, its nice that this regime is measured and not over the top. On the other hand, if I hadn't pirated anything, because my flatmates/kids/friends/neighbours had done something I didn't know about, I'd still be pissed off receiving that letter. I don't think the good people of the UK should be completely satisfied with this situation. There should be a way to push back and say, no I didn't do it, take your stinking letter back.
I doubt that there is any possibility to observationally test such a thing, and even if some weird experiment can be devised, I doubt it would really do more than hint at, rather than prove other universes. After all, by definition these other universes are not part of ours, so we can't get at them.
But let's just assume for a minute what is likely, that it can never be proven... Will the pointy headed boffins admit that it is not science, its... well.... something akin to religion really. About as scientific as any religious belief. In which case, shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions? The scientists must admit that certain things could well be true that they can't prove, and that such things are worth talking about in the same breath as "real science", i.e. the things that pretty much everyone admits is true because it is science.
Next time some pseudo intellectual proclaims "that's not science", just remember... neither is a lot of stuff that gets published under the name of science, and which nobody seems to complain about.
Errr, yeah, but they could have just used Intel chips like everyone else. Ultimately it would have given better performance, saved themselves a lot of pain in switch over, and put themselves ahead of the curve selling to people who wanted to dual boot. So did IBM save them or cripple them?
Properly represented? You shouldn't even be in court in the first place to need representation just because you made a comment about a restaurant.
And if this blog article comes up "too high" in Google's search for the town, can you seriously blame the blogger? Blame Google if you want to blame anyone, but don't blame the blogger because of Google's page rank algorithms.
Ha ha. My dad the school teacher was once asked to write a reference for the worst kid in the class, a real trouble maker. So he wrote "This is to certify that Bill Bloggs was a student in my class for the year 19XX". Apparently the kid was happy. Always laugh when I think of that.
"Is the service bad (as was the case)? Is the food bad? Do they try to screw you with the bill? Are other patrons too loud? Is the place dirty (inside)?"
I think all those things would turn off pretty much everyone. It's not like there is a shortage of places to eat.
So what the AEC is saying is that the election is safeguarded by what is called "security by obscurity". Or in other words, rather than having the software open so that security researchers can point out its flaws, you leave the flaws in place and hope that nobody knows what they are.
People who rely on this method, are known in security circles as "blathering idiots", "damned fools", "corrupt officials hiding something", and various things like that.
It's the moral equivalent of giving all the paper ballots to one single pointy headed official, asking him to count them, and then believing whatever number he decides to cough up. That's what you expect in Cuba, and other dictatorships.
Can you go to jail for obstruction before any lawsuit was even on the horizon? I doubt it. And maybe it was setup that way not so much to obstruct US law as to satisfy foreign law. What then?
I guess they can ask a US company to violate foreign law, but they can't ask foreign employees of said company to carry out those orders. And without that vital piece of the puzzle, its kind of silly, right?
Yeah but we're not talking about "moving" data, we're talking about data that always was there, and never was in the US. The question is about what does a company do when the law of different countries contradicts each other.
Whether and to what extent "upper management" have control over subsidiaries depends on a lot of factors, how the company was set up, what its charter is, and so forth. And remember we might be talking about foreign corporation law here. What if under foreign law you can set up a company with directors where there is 10 days notice to sack directors, and the directors have instructions to destroy all data upon this scenario of a foreign subpoena?
It's not quite the same, because imagine that Tobacco company had a Mexican subsidiary with Mexican documents stored in a Mexican storage facility under Mexican law, which may well be at odds with US law.
I think you'll find that even in the old paper world courts tend to accept the reality that some stuff is beyond their reach due to the practicalities of international law.
"if they have the authority to change the policy regarding who has credential to get the data they must do so"
How do you define "has the authority" though? If exercising that authority contravened the laws of a foreign power, does it constitute having authority? What if it contravenes a foreign religious system? What if it contravened the laws of a foreign power that the US doesn't recognise, or in a territory which is under dispute? (Palestine? Crimea? Taiwan? Sealand?).
The end game of this is that tech companies will set up the head of the pyramid of the company in some obscure jurisdiction who will do what they are told, and they'll set up their servers in countries with strong privacy laws, and the US will be left out of the loop.
How do you know the shop assistant is an employee? Maybe they contract them in from a body shop? It's none of your business where they get their labour from.
It seems oddly contradictory to a capitalist society that you would legislate specifically to keep prices high. And it seems odd that people would want their elected representatives to do so. After all, if most people want the corner book shop to exist, even though it keeps prices high, they are entitled to vote with their wallet. I mean, what's next, airliners are banned because the SS France will be put out of business?
Slashdot Mirror
He has a point that there is an opportunity cost. Whether it be the cost of owning the shares, or the cost of Amazon's infrastructure. Presumably Amazon cares (a lot!) about investors having confidence in the shares, or else nobody, not the shareholders, not the management, not anybody makes money.
"We're not talking about a company that is haemorrhaging money"
Well you only say that because its a 140 B company. But if investors suddenly decide this thing is never going to make money, it could suddenly be a 1B company. 126M loss in the context of a 1B company is huge. Until they actually make consistent money, who's to say how much this ship is worth? Could be worth nothing.
Depends if your aim is to have the most number of people on board quicker, or to have the flight ready to go quicker. Because getting 90% of the people on board doesn't actually help much, only having 100%. It's actually less comfortable for people to be on the aircraft waiting than to be in the waiting area.
If he'd claimed to be kicked off because he was black/white/gay or whatever, there'd be outrage. But because he was only exercising his free speech rights, people don't care that much.
Most people in this situation have no hope of knowing who did it. For example, I have 4 flatmates. If one of them does something like this, I would have no way of finding out which one it was. So its an utter waste of time. If I had kids at home, I'm sure they would all deny it too, like kids always do. If I had friends over, what am I going to ring my friends and accuse them? Ha!
It seems odd in so far as this precedent would seem to set up every application you ever buy for court audit to make sure it is absolutely as efficient as it possibly can be. If not, it could be using your electricity or draining your battery.
On the one hand, its nice that this regime is measured and not over the top. On the other hand, if I hadn't pirated anything, because my flatmates/kids/friends/neighbours had done something I didn't know about, I'd still be pissed off receiving that letter. I don't think the good people of the UK should be completely satisfied with this situation. There should be a way to push back and say, no I didn't do it, take your stinking letter back.
"There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested."
Ha ha. You fooled a few people I guess.
"and will eventually converge in a big crunch."
OK, test the big crunch, I dare you.
I doubt that there is any possibility to observationally test such a thing, and even if some weird experiment can be devised, I doubt it would really do more than hint at, rather than prove other universes. After all, by definition these other universes are not part of ours, so we can't get at them.
But let's just assume for a minute what is likely, that it can never be proven... Will the pointy headed boffins admit that it is not science, its... well.... something akin to religion really. About as scientific as any religious belief. In which case, shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions? The scientists must admit that certain things could well be true that they can't prove, and that such things are worth talking about in the same breath as "real science", i.e. the things that pretty much everyone admits is true because it is science.
Next time some pseudo intellectual proclaims "that's not science", just remember... neither is a lot of stuff that gets published under the name of science, and which nobody seems to complain about.
Errr, yeah, but they could have just used Intel chips like everyone else. Ultimately it would have given better performance, saved themselves a lot of pain in switch over, and put themselves ahead of the curve selling to people who wanted to dual boot. So did IBM save them or cripple them?
Haha. But the court's business goes on regardless of its reputation, so it can't really suffer.
Properly represented? You shouldn't even be in court in the first place to need representation just because you made a comment about a restaurant.
And if this blog article comes up "too high" in Google's search for the town, can you seriously blame the blogger? Blame Google if you want to blame anyone, but don't blame the blogger because of Google's page rank algorithms.
Ha ha. My dad the school teacher was once asked to write a reference for the worst kid in the class, a real trouble maker. So he wrote "This is to certify that Bill Bloggs was a student in my class for the year 19XX". Apparently the kid was happy. Always laugh when I think of that.
"Is the service bad (as was the case)? Is the food bad? Do they try to screw you with the bill? Are other patrons too loud? Is the place dirty (inside)?"
I think all those things would turn off pretty much everyone. It's not like there is a shortage of places to eat.
"What you can do is write a review that is so incredible positive"
No, what you do is something like this..
"Well.. I guess the napkins were a nice colour. That's all I can say".
So what the AEC is saying is that the election is safeguarded by what is called "security by obscurity". Or in other words, rather than having the software open so that security researchers can point out its flaws, you leave the flaws in place and hope that nobody knows what they are.
People who rely on this method, are known in security circles as "blathering idiots", "damned fools", "corrupt officials hiding something", and various things like that.
It's the moral equivalent of giving all the paper ballots to one single pointy headed official, asking him to count them, and then believing whatever number he decides to cough up. That's what you expect in Cuba, and other dictatorships.
Can you go to jail for obstruction before any lawsuit was even on the horizon? I doubt it. And maybe it was setup that way not so much to obstruct US law as to satisfy foreign law. What then?
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!
I guess they can ask a US company to violate foreign law, but they can't ask foreign employees of said company to carry out those orders. And without that vital piece of the puzzle, its kind of silly, right?
Yeah but we're not talking about "moving" data, we're talking about data that always was there, and never was in the US. The question is about what does a company do when the law of different countries contradicts each other.
Whether and to what extent "upper management" have control over subsidiaries depends on a lot of factors, how the company was set up, what its charter is, and so forth. And remember we might be talking about foreign corporation law here. What if under foreign law you can set up a company with directors where there is 10 days notice to sack directors, and the directors have instructions to destroy all data upon this scenario of a foreign subpoena?
It's not quite the same, because imagine that Tobacco company had a Mexican subsidiary with Mexican documents stored in a Mexican storage facility under Mexican law, which may well be at odds with US law.
I think you'll find that even in the old paper world courts tend to accept the reality that some stuff is beyond their reach due to the practicalities of international law.
"if they have the authority to change the policy regarding who has credential to get the data they must do so"
How do you define "has the authority" though? If exercising that authority contravened the laws of a foreign power, does it constitute having authority? What if it contravenes a foreign religious system? What if it contravened the laws of a foreign power that the US doesn't recognise, or in a territory which is under dispute? (Palestine? Crimea? Taiwan? Sealand?).
The end game of this is that tech companies will set up the head of the pyramid of the company in some obscure jurisdiction who will do what they are told, and they'll set up their servers in countries with strong privacy laws, and the US will be left out of the loop.
How do you know the shop assistant is an employee? Maybe they contract them in from a body shop? It's none of your business where they get their labour from.
It seems oddly contradictory to a capitalist society that you would legislate specifically to keep prices high. And it seems odd that people would want their elected representatives to do so. After all, if most people want the corner book shop to exist, even though it keeps prices high, they are entitled to vote with their wallet. I mean, what's next, airliners are banned because the SS France will be put out of business?