According to my coworkers, the monitor is the CPU.
See, that is why my company is doing so much better - we hire much more tech-savvy employees. They know that the CPU is the box that sits underneath the monitor.
Do you believe Congress must understand all the details of how cellular networks or Internet service providers work in order to legislate concerning these topics?
It might not hurt if they own a cell phone.
That's my issue with the average congressman, or CEO for that matter. They're just out of touch. It isn't that they don't know how texting works. They don't think of it as something an ordinary person would do.
I heard a story from a previous boss about the president of the R&D division blowing up because his printer was out of paper (and not realizing that was why it wasn't printing). This was in the late 90s, the company was one most people would consider a "technology" company though it was not IT, and the person in question held a Ph.D.
Surround somebody with an army of assistants for a decade and it seems like they forget how to put on their clothes in the morning.
Eh kinda hard to get line of sight to a drone through a forest. Maybe they should be looking for the guy clingling grimly to the tops of the trees?
The only people who think that you need line of sight to operate a drone are busy working for the FAA.
You don't really even need to be anywhere nearby to operate the things - just program it to wake up at 3AM and fly a GPS route long after you've placed it at the launch point. If the value of the delivery is high enough you won't even have to go recover it. Or you could wait at the recovery point which need not be anywhere near where it launched from.
However, the various Governments already take in over 20% of the GDP for taxes, surely that is enough to get the jobs done?
It all depends on your standards. If you want a space elevator it might cost a bit more - to use an extreme example.
I think the scale of government needs to be reactive. It needs to get done the things that are worth doing if nobody else is willing to do them. One of those things is ensuring that everybody has the essentials of life. If private industry only employs 10% of the population, then the government is going to have to fund the other 90%, which means some pretty hefty taxes.
However, none of this should be viewed as being against private industry. Indeed, I think that we should meddle less with private industry - let them get the job done in the most efficient way possible without any regard to how many people become unemployed. Often our policies saddle companies with needless expense simply because we use companies as an inefficient social welfare system. Instead we should run welfare efficiently, and let companies be run efficiently.
I support basic income. However, I think there is also value in giving people things to do.
I'm not big on make-work for its own sake. Paying one person to dig ditches and another to fill them is pointless waste.
However, if we can give people something to do and fix our rotting infrastructure at the same time, all the better. I wouldn't suggest doing the job in a way that is less safe or less competent just to involve fewer skilled laborers. Make use of what you can.
I wouldn't make people with arthritis dig ditches or face starvation. Heck, I wouldn't ask anybody to dig a ditch that could be better dug with a backhoe either.
Your trade deficit is around 500 Billion / year and has been there for decades now, you are not paying for things you are getting in the US of A, your suggestion will only worsen the trade imbalance, pot-hole repairs cannot be exported in exchange for all those manufactured goods you are importing for FREE (free, because it's all vendor financed, thus the giant debt).
So, how is getting free stuff bad?
Trade imbalance just means that the US is getting tangible goods and services in exchange for little pieces of paper. Down the road maybe people stop accepting those pieces of paper. If that happens the US will just declare them worthless, and people will just have to buy their toys locally.
The solution to the trade deficit is tariffs so that people buy things locally in the first place.
So, all the trade deficit does is lets the US citizen get lots of free stuff for a decade before the party ends and we have to start paying for our toys.
I think socialism is basically inevitable. Sooner or later if you don't feed poor people they tend to start revolting. The nature of specialization is eliminating the need for as many jobs - it used to take 50% of the population just to grow food. Now one combine can do the job of 1000 people. That isn't a bad thing - it is just progress. That doesn't mean that we stop feeding everybody.
As for the unskilled, I would say they have it better in this economy than someone who has skills but is looking for a job that doesn't need them.
I'm not sure that either are better off. Unskilled jobs do not pay a living wage for the most part, so people with them are hardly better-off. Sure, they're better off than the homeless, but that's about it.
My point is that we shouldn't be focused on creating jobs so much as maximizing the economy. Feeding people and running the economy are two different things.
Tech startups don't create the kinds of jobs that the 99% actually need. Oh, sure, many of them will eventually hire one secretary, and will pay into their building's contract for one part-time janitor.
I have to admit that saying they're jobs we don't need sounds a bit misguided. Who says? Why wouldn't they be? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a technical work force? That's what it sounds like... but if I were to guess how you'd respond if asked that, you'd say that's not what you're trying to say at all.
It isn't.:)
I'm not saying the jobs aren't needed. They just aren't the kind of jobs the "99%" need.
When you talk about the "need" for a job there are two perspectives people tend to have: 1. The job needs doing, which is why a company wants to hire somebody. Obviously the company wouldn't be hiring somebody they didn't need, and if the economy didn't need the service being performed they wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I think this is the sense you were talking about. 2. Somebody needs a job to put food on the table. This is the sense I was talking about. We have an economic model where people are expected to work, and thus there is interest in doing things that stimulate the creation of jobs so that they have jobs to do.
I'm all for stimulating the economy when #1 is the driver. However, I don't know that private industry is the right solution for #2. Sure, take action when it actually works, but investing a billion dollars in a company so that it can hire 14 people (of which only 1 wouldn't otherwise find a job elsewhere) just isn't an effective way to do #2.
If the economy otherwise benefits from stimulating that company, then by all means do it. I think it is in the national interest to create self-driving cars - it would have huge benefits to everybody. However, on the whole it would probably destroy many more jobs than it creates. So, funding self-driving cars to accomplish #2 is dumb. On the other hand, not funding self-driving cars because it doesn't accomplish #2 is also dumb.
Bottom line is that we should fund development of capabilities because it makes sense for society to have those capabilities. The creation of jobs per-se shouldn't be the driver for stimulating the economy. If we run out of work to give to people then just pay them to stay home until a need for them to do something comes up.
I'm suggesting taxing a bit more. Government is 41% of the GDP right now. If private industry is only going to employ 10% of the population, then it stands to reason that government will ultimately be the other 90%. That sounds crazy, but it might work perfectly fine.
I'm on a T-mo family plan. Still, my costs for 4 lines are about $50/month lower than they were several years ago, except now all my lines have unlimited voice, SMS, and 2G data. I also get 500MB of 4G data on each line, and an extra 2G of 4G on one of them. I wouldn't say I'm paying less than half of what I used to pay, but it is in the ballpark.
I might be able to do a bit better with other options, but unlimited everything has a certain appeal to it.
you want to trust the government, you have about the same luck. They can take your money just as easily...only it'll be legal.
Well, think about it.
Imagine we live out in the middle of nowhere. We all get along, but one guy in the village takes payment to do a job, and then doesn't do the job. He does that to a bunch of us who live in the village. So, we all show up one day and tell him to give us our money back, or else.
That's the government.
Sure, it isn't as responsive as it should be and has grown out of control in many ways. However, ultimately when you want some kind of accountability when somebody screws you, that's what the government is for.
Now, in the case of a bitcoin exchange you could also get around this problem by both reputation and avoiding trusting them with large sums. If you only gave them bitcoins when you wanted to make an exchange and expected payment in a day or two then your opportunity for loss is very limited. That's what happens anytime I buy furniture - furniture stores are notorious for going bankrupt and taking your money. However, if you only give money to a furniture store for a two-day period once every 5 years, it is unlikely this will impact you. If you prepay next year's sofa lineup with plans to take delivery in 18 months, then you are much more likely to have problems.
Tech startups don't create the kinds of jobs that the 99% actually need. Oh, sure, many of them will eventually hire one secretary, and will pay into their building's contract for one part-time janitor.
As pointed out in the WhatsApp example, most tech startups employ a dozen or so high-skill kids at low wages. In most cases they then work for 5 years and lose their jobs, not having really made much of anything. The ones that make the papers are the ones where the kids become millionaires. They then grow into 20-50 person firms that never really hire anybody who isn't technically skilled. As modern companies they don't have the kinds of legacy processes that involve heavy manpower. If they sell widgets then they do the design with a few local employees, send the manufacture to Asia, and then warehouse the goods in some 3PL company that puts part-timers lacking benefits through a meat grinder to get packages shipped (those companies create jobs for sure, but as few as they can possibly manage at low pay and they're anything but desirable jobs).
I think startups are important for the economy, but not because they create jobs.
I think we need to get past the model where the typical person is employed by a private company. Private companies just don't need the sorts of skills that the typical person has. Nobody wants to hire an average programmer (at least, not at US wages), or an average marketer, etc. Today we have hyper-specialization and if you're in the top 1% of whatever you do you'll have a job for life, and if not you'll be lucky to ever have a job. We're still in transition, but all the trends are there.
We life in a country which has a huge economy, and yet tons of people who are unemployed. And yet, our roads and bridges are falling apart. Just tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country and give people part-time jobs fixing potholes or whatever. When we run out of those they can fix bridges, dig trenches for municipal broadband, and so on.
You'll never hear businesses lobbying for that, however, because then they might actually have to pay their janitors a living wage to keep them. I'm not suggesting private enterprise is evil/bad/etc, but ultimately these companies are not stewards of the public interest. Let's run the economy in a way that actually allows people who are unemployable to survive, and which helps the private economy as well. After all, wouldn't better transportation in the Bay Area help companies like Google?
If they come across as being tough but rational, then calling the police will probably have the effect you describe.
If they come across as being nuts, then calling the police might get you shot the next night. Sure, the police will know who did it, but nutcases aren't always the best appliers of logic.
I know somebody who lived near somebody who was seriously nuts, and it was really frustrating for them. They just tried to stay out of it, and capture video evidence of anything too crazy. I think the guy finally managed to get his house condemned which got him out of the neighborhood. Either that or he managed to do something to get himself arrested. I do remember a story of him stopping by my friend's house and mentioning the medications he was given when the police hauled him to the asylum which had to let him go after a day. He was asking if my friend could feel the energy waves.
In this case no harm came to anybody (though when his alarm went off due to smoke detection the firemen who entered the house didn't appreciate the booby traps they found.
True, but at least they have to ask for the data now. Before they could just go digging through it.
Who is to say they still can't. With getting all tinfoil hat about it the only thing we have is Google's word on the matter. That's pretty thin.
Meh, I suspect that if that were their attitude they wouldn't have drawn attention to the issue at all. They were the ones who made a big deal of the government snooping their dedicated lines.
Yup, for the most part most of the folks who get made fun of in school just arrange their lives in adulthood so that the folks who made fun of them aren't around any longer. They might run into each other at work, but the workplace isn't going to tolerate nonsense because it costs them money, and if the "jock manager" gives the "nerd producer" too much grief the company will probably figure out which it needs more. The bullies who make it to the executive level aren't bothered with pestering the help - they're too busy flying to golf outings.
They'll close shop in India, put up firewall blocks around their borders and disallow anything from or to india to run from Google's networks.
Agree on all but this bit. They'll certainly pull out, but I doubt they'll block Indians from accessing their services. They'll probably even sell ads targeted at them, though they probably won't collect those funds from Indian businesses.
Maybe the Indian government will firewall them. There is no reason for Google to do it. They can just ignore any fines India levies, and there really is nothing India will be able to do to collect on them.
As an adult, if your neighbor makes a threat to you, do you go over to his house one afternoon and beat the shit out of him with a crowbar to "stand up for yourself"? No. You report his threats to the police.
I think most people would just sell their houses and move. If you have enough evidence to put some wacko behind bars then maybe it is worth going to the police, but otherwise they're going to show up, talk to the guy, reveal that you called them in, and then leave. It isn't like they can arrest somebody because somebody claimed that they were threatened by them.
To some extent this is why gentrification exists in the first place. People move to expensive neighborhoods because creepy people usually can't hold down a decent job long enough to live there. So, they terrorize poor people instead.
No, I wouldn't break into the creep's house at night and smash their head in with a crowbar either. That just ends badly for you, since the police will actually take action in that case. If they smash your head in they'll do something about that as well, but most people would prefer not to wait for that to happen.
And people wonder why voters push for "stand your ground" laws...
I hate the notion that one would need a chief financial officer, a controller, inside auditors, outside auditors, a board of directors, an audit committee, and a compliance officer. Having any of those wastes would not have made any difference whatsoever to the current outcome of bitcoin. I'm so proud of those guys for not going that route.
We're talking about a $1B/yr operation. Sure, if it were smaller you could probably get by with only a few of those.
My linux distro has a board of directors, and it only does maybe $10k/yr in financials. Heck, so does the local RC airplane club, and I doubt they own much in the way of tangible property at all.
Sure, simply paying people doesn't make your bank secure. If they do their jobs it certainly helps though.
The way it works is that nobody does business with a real bank if they don't have external auditors (which effectively includes government regulators, even though they're usually not counted as auditors). The various internal positions are then required to get all the work done needed to satisfy them.
A lot of it is about division of responsibility so that one person can't just dip into the account and wire themselves $100M. Separating your front-end and back-end software is just sane security practice. You don't stick all your validation and business logic on a web-server that anybody can pwn.
Slashdot Mirror
You know of an IQ Test that can measure corruptibility?
Nope, but there is a test that works rather well. Have them run for office. If they can't raise the necessary funds they're probably incorruptible.
According to my coworkers, the monitor is the CPU.
See, that is why my company is doing so much better - we hire much more tech-savvy employees. They know that the CPU is the box that sits underneath the monitor.
Do you believe Congress must understand all the details of how cellular networks or Internet service providers work in order to legislate concerning these topics?
It might not hurt if they own a cell phone.
That's my issue with the average congressman, or CEO for that matter. They're just out of touch. It isn't that they don't know how texting works. They don't think of it as something an ordinary person would do.
I heard a story from a previous boss about the president of the R&D division blowing up because his printer was out of paper (and not realizing that was why it wasn't printing). This was in the late 90s, the company was one most people would consider a "technology" company though it was not IT, and the person in question held a Ph.D.
Surround somebody with an army of assistants for a decade and it seems like they forget how to put on their clothes in the morning.
Set up a few antennas that add some noise on the controlling frequencies, problem solved.
Drones don't actually need to be controlled. For a delivery job a pre-programmed route would work just fine.
Eh kinda hard to get line of sight to a drone through a forest. Maybe they should be looking for the guy clingling grimly to the tops of the trees?
The only people who think that you need line of sight to operate a drone are busy working for the FAA.
You don't really even need to be anywhere nearby to operate the things - just program it to wake up at 3AM and fly a GPS route long after you've placed it at the launch point. If the value of the delivery is high enough you won't even have to go recover it. Or you could wait at the recovery point which need not be anywhere near where it launched from.
Are you familiar with the term "helipad", do you see it anywhere in the documentation?
Yes
Ok, make it the 90% then. :)
However, the various Governments already take in over 20% of the GDP for taxes, surely that is enough to get the jobs done?
It all depends on your standards. If you want a space elevator it might cost a bit more - to use an extreme example.
I think the scale of government needs to be reactive. It needs to get done the things that are worth doing if nobody else is willing to do them. One of those things is ensuring that everybody has the essentials of life. If private industry only employs 10% of the population, then the government is going to have to fund the other 90%, which means some pretty hefty taxes.
However, none of this should be viewed as being against private industry. Indeed, I think that we should meddle less with private industry - let them get the job done in the most efficient way possible without any regard to how many people become unemployed. Often our policies saddle companies with needless expense simply because we use companies as an inefficient social welfare system. Instead we should run welfare efficiently, and let companies be run efficiently.
I support basic income. However, I think there is also value in giving people things to do.
I'm not big on make-work for its own sake. Paying one person to dig ditches and another to fill them is pointless waste.
However, if we can give people something to do and fix our rotting infrastructure at the same time, all the better. I wouldn't suggest doing the job in a way that is less safe or less competent just to involve fewer skilled laborers. Make use of what you can.
I wouldn't make people with arthritis dig ditches or face starvation. Heck, I wouldn't ask anybody to dig a ditch that could be better dug with a backhoe either.
Your trade deficit is around 500 Billion / year and has been there for decades now, you are not paying for things you are getting in the US of A, your suggestion will only worsen the trade imbalance, pot-hole repairs cannot be exported in exchange for all those manufactured goods you are importing for FREE (free, because it's all vendor financed, thus the giant debt).
So, how is getting free stuff bad?
Trade imbalance just means that the US is getting tangible goods and services in exchange for little pieces of paper. Down the road maybe people stop accepting those pieces of paper. If that happens the US will just declare them worthless, and people will just have to buy their toys locally.
The solution to the trade deficit is tariffs so that people buy things locally in the first place.
So, all the trade deficit does is lets the US citizen get lots of free stuff for a decade before the party ends and we have to start paying for our toys.
I think socialism is basically inevitable. Sooner or later if you don't feed poor people they tend to start revolting. The nature of specialization is eliminating the need for as many jobs - it used to take 50% of the population just to grow food. Now one combine can do the job of 1000 people. That isn't a bad thing - it is just progress. That doesn't mean that we stop feeding everybody.
As for the unskilled, I would say they have it better in this economy than someone who has skills but is looking for a job that doesn't need them.
I'm not sure that either are better off. Unskilled jobs do not pay a living wage for the most part, so people with them are hardly better-off. Sure, they're better off than the homeless, but that's about it.
My point is that we shouldn't be focused on creating jobs so much as maximizing the economy. Feeding people and running the economy are two different things.
Tech startups don't create the kinds of jobs that the 99% actually need. Oh, sure, many of them will eventually hire one secretary, and will pay into their building's contract for one part-time janitor.
I have to admit that saying they're jobs we don't need sounds a bit misguided. Who says? Why wouldn't they be? Are you suggesting we shouldn't have a technical work force? That's what it sounds like... but if I were to guess how you'd respond if asked that, you'd say that's not what you're trying to say at all.
It isn't. :)
I'm not saying the jobs aren't needed. They just aren't the kind of jobs the "99%" need.
When you talk about the "need" for a job there are two perspectives people tend to have:
1. The job needs doing, which is why a company wants to hire somebody. Obviously the company wouldn't be hiring somebody they didn't need, and if the economy didn't need the service being performed they wouldn't be willing to pay for it. I think this is the sense you were talking about.
2. Somebody needs a job to put food on the table. This is the sense I was talking about. We have an economic model where people are expected to work, and thus there is interest in doing things that stimulate the creation of jobs so that they have jobs to do.
I'm all for stimulating the economy when #1 is the driver. However, I don't know that private industry is the right solution for #2. Sure, take action when it actually works, but investing a billion dollars in a company so that it can hire 14 people (of which only 1 wouldn't otherwise find a job elsewhere) just isn't an effective way to do #2.
If the economy otherwise benefits from stimulating that company, then by all means do it. I think it is in the national interest to create self-driving cars - it would have huge benefits to everybody. However, on the whole it would probably destroy many more jobs than it creates. So, funding self-driving cars to accomplish #2 is dumb. On the other hand, not funding self-driving cars because it doesn't accomplish #2 is also dumb.
Bottom line is that we should fund development of capabilities because it makes sense for society to have those capabilities. The creation of jobs per-se shouldn't be the driver for stimulating the economy. If we run out of work to give to people then just pay them to stay home until a need for them to do something comes up.
I'm suggesting taxing a bit more. Government is 41% of the GDP right now. If private industry is only going to employ 10% of the population, then it stands to reason that government will ultimately be the other 90%. That sounds crazy, but it might work perfectly fine.
Nope, but the link is appreciated all the same. :) I had no doubt I wasn't the first to think what I said though.
I'm on a T-mo family plan. Still, my costs for 4 lines are about $50/month lower than they were several years ago, except now all my lines have unlimited voice, SMS, and 2G data. I also get 500MB of 4G data on each line, and an extra 2G of 4G on one of them. I wouldn't say I'm paying less than half of what I used to pay, but it is in the ballpark.
I might be able to do a bit better with other options, but unlimited everything has a certain appeal to it.
you want to trust the government, you have about the same luck. They can take your money just as easily...only it'll be legal.
Well, think about it.
Imagine we live out in the middle of nowhere. We all get along, but one guy in the village takes payment to do a job, and then doesn't do the job. He does that to a bunch of us who live in the village. So, we all show up one day and tell him to give us our money back, or else.
That's the government.
Sure, it isn't as responsive as it should be and has grown out of control in many ways. However, ultimately when you want some kind of accountability when somebody screws you, that's what the government is for.
Now, in the case of a bitcoin exchange you could also get around this problem by both reputation and avoiding trusting them with large sums. If you only gave them bitcoins when you wanted to make an exchange and expected payment in a day or two then your opportunity for loss is very limited. That's what happens anytime I buy furniture - furniture stores are notorious for going bankrupt and taking your money. However, if you only give money to a furniture store for a two-day period once every 5 years, it is unlikely this will impact you. If you prepay next year's sofa lineup with plans to take delivery in 18 months, then you are much more likely to have problems.
Tech startups don't create the kinds of jobs that the 99% actually need. Oh, sure, many of them will eventually hire one secretary, and will pay into their building's contract for one part-time janitor.
As pointed out in the WhatsApp example, most tech startups employ a dozen or so high-skill kids at low wages. In most cases they then work for 5 years and lose their jobs, not having really made much of anything. The ones that make the papers are the ones where the kids become millionaires. They then grow into 20-50 person firms that never really hire anybody who isn't technically skilled. As modern companies they don't have the kinds of legacy processes that involve heavy manpower. If they sell widgets then they do the design with a few local employees, send the manufacture to Asia, and then warehouse the goods in some 3PL company that puts part-timers lacking benefits through a meat grinder to get packages shipped (those companies create jobs for sure, but as few as they can possibly manage at low pay and they're anything but desirable jobs).
I think startups are important for the economy, but not because they create jobs.
I think we need to get past the model where the typical person is employed by a private company. Private companies just don't need the sorts of skills that the typical person has. Nobody wants to hire an average programmer (at least, not at US wages), or an average marketer, etc. Today we have hyper-specialization and if you're in the top 1% of whatever you do you'll have a job for life, and if not you'll be lucky to ever have a job. We're still in transition, but all the trends are there.
We life in a country which has a huge economy, and yet tons of people who are unemployed. And yet, our roads and bridges are falling apart. Just tax a small bit of the wealth flowing through the country and give people part-time jobs fixing potholes or whatever. When we run out of those they can fix bridges, dig trenches for municipal broadband, and so on.
You'll never hear businesses lobbying for that, however, because then they might actually have to pay their janitors a living wage to keep them. I'm not suggesting private enterprise is evil/bad/etc, but ultimately these companies are not stewards of the public interest. Let's run the economy in a way that actually allows people who are unemployable to survive, and which helps the private economy as well. After all, wouldn't better transportation in the Bay Area help companies like Google?
It really depends on the nature of the bully.
If they come across as being tough but rational, then calling the police will probably have the effect you describe.
If they come across as being nuts, then calling the police might get you shot the next night. Sure, the police will know who did it, but nutcases aren't always the best appliers of logic.
I know somebody who lived near somebody who was seriously nuts, and it was really frustrating for them. They just tried to stay out of it, and capture video evidence of anything too crazy. I think the guy finally managed to get his house condemned which got him out of the neighborhood. Either that or he managed to do something to get himself arrested. I do remember a story of him stopping by my friend's house and mentioning the medications he was given when the police hauled him to the asylum which had to let him go after a day. He was asking if my friend could feel the energy waves.
In this case no harm came to anybody (though when his alarm went off due to smoke detection the firemen who entered the house didn't appreciate the booby traps they found.
True, but at least they have to ask for the data now. Before they could just go digging through it.
Who is to say they still can't. With getting all tinfoil hat about it the only thing we have is Google's word on the matter. That's pretty thin.
Meh, I suspect that if that were their attitude they wouldn't have drawn attention to the issue at all. They were the ones who made a big deal of the government snooping their dedicated lines.
Yup, for the most part most of the folks who get made fun of in school just arrange their lives in adulthood so that the folks who made fun of them aren't around any longer. They might run into each other at work, but the workplace isn't going to tolerate nonsense because it costs them money, and if the "jock manager" gives the "nerd producer" too much grief the company will probably figure out which it needs more. The bullies who make it to the executive level aren't bothered with pestering the help - they're too busy flying to golf outings.
They'll close shop in India, put up firewall blocks around their borders and disallow anything from or to india to run from Google's networks.
Agree on all but this bit. They'll certainly pull out, but I doubt they'll block Indians from accessing their services. They'll probably even sell ads targeted at them, though they probably won't collect those funds from Indian businesses.
Maybe the Indian government will firewall them. There is no reason for Google to do it. They can just ignore any fines India levies, and there really is nothing India will be able to do to collect on them.
As an adult, if your neighbor makes a threat to you, do you go over to his house one afternoon and beat the shit out of him with a crowbar to "stand up for yourself"? No. You report his threats to the police.
I think most people would just sell their houses and move. If you have enough evidence to put some wacko behind bars then maybe it is worth going to the police, but otherwise they're going to show up, talk to the guy, reveal that you called them in, and then leave. It isn't like they can arrest somebody because somebody claimed that they were threatened by them.
To some extent this is why gentrification exists in the first place. People move to expensive neighborhoods because creepy people usually can't hold down a decent job long enough to live there. So, they terrorize poor people instead.
No, I wouldn't break into the creep's house at night and smash their head in with a crowbar either. That just ends badly for you, since the police will actually take action in that case. If they smash your head in they'll do something about that as well, but most people would prefer not to wait for that to happen.
And people wonder why voters push for "stand your ground" laws...
Somehow I doubt that Google is going to recoup $5B on ads run by businesses in India anytime soon.
They say they need a court order. How do we know they havn't just issued some secret National Security Letter or FISA warrant...
True, but at least they have to ask for the data now. Before they could just go digging through it.
I hate the notion that one would need a chief financial officer, a controller, inside auditors, outside auditors, a board of directors, an audit committee, and a compliance officer. Having any of those wastes would not have made any difference whatsoever to the current outcome of bitcoin. I'm so proud of those guys for not going that route.
We're talking about a $1B/yr operation. Sure, if it were smaller you could probably get by with only a few of those.
My linux distro has a board of directors, and it only does maybe $10k/yr in financials. Heck, so does the local RC airplane club, and I doubt they own much in the way of tangible property at all.
Sure, simply paying people doesn't make your bank secure. If they do their jobs it certainly helps though.
The way it works is that nobody does business with a real bank if they don't have external auditors (which effectively includes government regulators, even though they're usually not counted as auditors). The various internal positions are then required to get all the work done needed to satisfy them.
A lot of it is about division of responsibility so that one person can't just dip into the account and wire themselves $100M. Separating your front-end and back-end software is just sane security practice. You don't stick all your validation and business logic on a web-server that anybody can pwn.