Creationists believe 'God intentionally did it all exactly as it is'.
Not all of them.
Evolution implies god had no direct hand in the changes.
Who created the physical laws that drive the natural selection process?
The only possible way to rationalize evolution is to completely dismiss the message, the messenger and reference to it as evil, a lie or just wrong.
Or to realize that it is just one tool in the toolbox of an omniscient being. That it is the natural result of a set of complex physical laws that came from somewhere.
I mean, evolution on one hand and a personal god on the other are really incompatible ideas.
No, they actually aren't.
It's creationism vs. "evolution as the origin of life" that are incompatible. Evolution as "change over time" isn't. The former is a purely religious debate -- how did it happen when nobody was there to observe -- vs. scientific -- how might it have happened and/or what happens today? It is not incompatible to believe that there is a being that created the universe with a wonderful and complex intricacy that scientists spend their lives studying and describing. I think that it would be quite likely for God to have done that, in fact.
What are more incompatible (but still not unreconcilable) are literalism and evolution. "God created..." and "day" are sticking points if you assume fully literal interpretations of those words. But nothing says how He created it, and there are already interpretations of prophecy where a "day" doesn't mean a literal day. Would it be fair to say that "creating the physical laws and sandbox in which they apply" counts as "creating" just as much as "passing laws to fund and making speeches to promote" something counts as "creating"?
Now, before you leap up and say "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life", well, the fact that this debate is creationism vs. evolution kind of shows that many people do consider evolution to include the origin of life and not just adaptation of existing life over time.
ATMs don't store meaningful account data. That data is held by the banks and transmitted via the processors.
I didn't say the ATM stored the data. I said "By grabbing account data from every person who uses the machine". When you stick your card in the face of the ATM and enter your pin code, the COMPUTER processes that and sends it over the net. Oh, look, the BIOS has been hacked so that it sends your account data and pin out over that network to someone in China. They're getting everything that appears on your magstripe, not just the account number. From that they can duplicate your card.
If I get your account data, I can clean out your account. If I get a hundred people's data, I can clean out 100 people's accounts. You probably won't notice I've done that until your next statement comes out, or if you try to make a withdrawal the next day and cannot. I might not even make the first illicit transaction for a month so nobody will know for a month.
If I pull all the cash from the machine the bank will know that as soon as it happens. The machine will report back to mama "I'm empty, come feed me." They won't even have to send anyone out to see the pry marks, they'll know there is a problem because the record of withdrawals won't cover the amount of cash missing.
So THAT'S the answer to the question "why not just steal the cash".
Color me puzzled, but if you already have already physically broken into the ATM to gain access to the USB port, why not just grab the cash instead?
Because that would be easily detected and would be a one-shot win. By grabbing account data from every person who uses the machine you can clean out accounts -- which would be a lot more than the cash in the machine.
I don't know any Linux or unix machine which would be compromised merely by plugging a memory stick.
My Acer netbook reflashes the BIOS if it is turned on with a USB stick containing a file of a certain name in place. If you control the BIOS, you control the computer.
This feature truly is a good thing, since turning the netbook off improperly while running some linux versions bricks it.
- Allow an independent organization the authority to audit the media for sensationalism, and fine them.
This, unfortunately, would violate the first amendment, and it would never be acceptable to those it was intended to regulate. They have limited time and limited resources to present a potentially large amount of information to the viewers/readers, and your "sensationalism" is their "edited to fit the space available".
When are we going to stop allowing greed to dictate our "news" ?
The day we socialize all media and pay for it through tax dollars. The Beeb has a reputation because of that, and US "public television" tries to claim they do because they claim they aren't advertiser supported. Unfortunately, they are clearly advertiser supported ("Buy the DVD of this series from... for $X" is an ad, and arguably "This program is made possible by funding from XYZ corporation, selling impressive widgets at 3rd and Main for the last 23 years..."). But advertiser supported TV will always have a basis in "eyes", and thus "greed" (a now meaningless word since all commercial activity is labelled as such).
The answer is "never". The modern economy is built on a "race to the bottom" mentality.
The modern newsroom is built on the "race to the first" and "race to the most impressive", which results in a race to the bottom.
Advertisers pay for eyes. Eyes come attached to people who want to know FIRST the most IMPRESSIVE news. "There's a gunman holed up in a house on 51st and Mainwaring, and Mark Flarky is in the field with our Live Team Coverage..."
One night it was dumping snow on the city and pretty much everyone knew it. I was listening to the local station's VHF radio channel where they coordinated remotes, and they were rushing to the hospital for something. I listened to them driving through the heavy snow, then raising and pointing the microwave dish to get the critical live feed. I turned the TV on to see what was so critical. Literally, the report was "it is snowing really hard and you shouldn't be out on the roads unless it is an emergency...". D'oh. Risking lives so they could be first with the live information that anyone who looked out the window would know.
If you can find the local station's coordination frequencies, they're a hoot to listen to. I expect that most are done using cell phones today, but you never know.
In Oklahoma it is illegal to get a fish drunk. Now, work on the morality aspect of that one if you will.
Easy. If fish are people, too, and have feelings and thought, as some would argue, then getting a fish drunk against it's will is just as unethical as dropping a roofie in some girl's drink.
Since your link doesn't say when the law was passed, we can just assume that Oklahoma is at the very forefront of animal rights issues since they've had laws regarding them for so long.
This. I'm amazed it has taken this far into the thread before someone has brought up the analogy to IP addresses and that IP addresses do not identify people.
Yes, they can find the account name on the "metadata" just like they find the account name on the ISP account that had the lease on the IP address. If anyone even hints that the account name on the latter proves that they used the IP address to do something there would he hundreds of derogatory postings on/. telling them they're ignorant, stupid, a moron, or an **AA shill. But when the NSA says they can't tie a phone number to a specific caller, they're liars and evil.
If **AA cannot do it with an IP address even though they claim they can, then the NSA cannot do the analogous operation on a phone number and they are correct when they say they cannot.
The results of a hindcast are never presented as real world data.
A. That you know of.
B. There was a conditional clause involved that included a complete loss of valuable real data. If the data was valuable and there is a model that can recreate it, it can be done.
C. If you know about hindcasting, then you know that modelers, as a regular course of business, create "new old data" which they then compare to the real old data. Saying "modelers don't create data" is wrong; they don't routinely or honestly create what they will call real data.
D. Even that last statement isn't totally true. In ocean modeling it is not unheard of for a model output (created data) to be used to correct some real-world measurements for parameters that cannot easily be measured. For example, if tide level data is required from a place that doesn't have a tide gauge, the modeled tide level from a validated model may be used. This leads to second generation "real" data that is directly dependent upon model output.
E. And again, "whoosh". It was a joke. "Woot woot!"
An interesting interpretation of the Constitution, where the general welfare clause is part of the preamble and not a proscriptive statement. And an interesting interpretation of how research grants are awarded, and even the general usefulness of vast quantities of research data.
Academics already write "publish" into the grants they get, or they ought to do so. "Publish" is not the same as "put all the data up in an organized manner for everyone to come use", however. And even being able to put it all up for casual use can be a costly venture. I'd estimate, ballpark, that it would take 12 months of full time staff to digitize the video tapes I have that are raw data just on the off chance that someone would want to use that data for something. Add several thousand dollars for a multi-Tb disk array to hold it, and another six months to catalog it.
And then should someone come along to use it, staff time to explain and help the person.
Printing money is one solution. Not a very good one.
That's very interesting! We had record low temperatures here a couple weeks ago. Colder than I've ever experienced in my life and I've been living here for 30 years. Exciting times! But, unfortunately two data points is not enough to make any kind of conclusion about changes in the global climate.
Record cold here, too. Now we have three points, and it's two to one in favor of global cooling. Woot woot!
We need lots of data to examine climate change, which has been collected for that very reason. It'd be a shame to lose it.
Don't fear. If we lose any real data, the atmospheric modelers will happily create new old data.
I've found dead links to data in peer reviewed papers published just a week or less prior to reading them, sometimes these links were never valid to begin with.
Maybe the peer-review process should be shorter, or you should keep up with current journals and not depend on ten year old articles?
Seriously though. maintenance of data requires money. I have 22 years worth of data here. Much of it is raw video on VHS tapes. Much of it is on old floppies. Much of it is on TK70 tapes. Much of it is on early versions of magnetoptical disks. I don't have anything that reads any of those formats anymore.
Who pays to keep copying old data onto new media as new media are developed and old media readers break? Not the funding agencies. They don't even pay for upkeep of the data that I do have online.
When you go from a good manufacturing job to unemployment to flipping burgers you are a victory in the unemployment statistics, politicians will cheer their success at reducing unemployment.
That's better than "go from good manufacturing job to no job to running out of unemployment insurance to giving up looking" which also counts as a success at reducing unemployment numbers.
Show me a single congressman (house or senate) that left "public service" poorer than they started.
Harry Truman. When he ended his 2nd term, all he had was his old WW1 Army pension to fall back on.
This contains an interesting summary of Truman's salary history.
In 1921 Truman's salary was probably close to nothing. He was living in debt and trying to keep his failing business open.
In 1922 he was elected Missouri's Jackson County judge and was paid $3,465.00 per year.
In 1925 Truman lost reelection and took a job selling AAA automobile club memberships for $15.00 each...
In 1926 he was elected as the presiding judge and was paid $6,000.00 per year.
In 1934 Truman was elected senator and made $10,000.00 a year.
In 1944 he was chosen to be the Roosevelt's third vice-president. His salary jumped to $20,000.00 per year.
In 1945... Truman became the President of the United States. His salary was $75,000.00 and then increased $100,000.00 a year
In 1954 he sold the rights to his biography for $600,000.00 which would be paid over 5 years, and in 1958 Congress passed a law to retroactively provide former presidents a pension of $25,000.00 a year.
So, he went into public service making about zero, starting with a judicial position at $3465 a year. He left the Presidency and started a military pension at $13500 a year. He then picked up another $25k a year retroactively starting in 1954.
I'd say going from zero to $38k a year is not leaving public service poorer than he started. It's not the lavish pensions pols get today, but it's still not poorer.
As for political donations for personal use, the same source reports:
He continued paying down the debt, even while the Great Depression was occurring, until 1934 when a political supporter bought his debt allowed him to pay it off for $1,000.00.
So, a political supporter donated a huge sum by buying the existing debt on the new Senator's failed clothing store and letting him pay it off cheap.
Heck even with a 'phone' it's useful. Imagine you arrive in Hong Kong at midnight and you want to move your phone to Vodaphone. You don't have to seek out some store and buy a SIM - Just happens presto.
When I travel with my phone, I don't even want to turn it on before I put in a new SIM for the local system. Turn it on, it registers with the local carrier and your home carrier starts forwarding calls to it -- at international rates.
I certainly don't want "presto" reprogramming my SIM. I don't want to have to call my home carrier to tell them to move it to X, and then X to have them move it back, and have one or both of them charge me for the privilege of screwing it up so I have no working phone at all. No thanks. That's one of the benefits of having GSM versus whatever. The phone is the SIM, and I can carry more than one to be more than one thing. And I can use the second SIM in my backup phone without it costing me a second plan on both carriers.
You're missing the point. Only a dumb chat bot would take his typo literally
Who took it literally? I think I was being very kind in pointing out the typo by using gentle sarcasm. Perhaps my saying that 50 mHz is "well below" human hearing instead of "practically fucking DC" confused you?
This is "news for nerds." Any self-respecting nerd that doesn't know the SI system of prefixes should just turn the computer off and go back to bed. Trying to insult the messenger for a failure to preview a posting and being NINE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WRONG is just pathetic.
Back when the 486dx4 was out, I'd tune my FM radio to ~100mHz
Wow. You have a radio that tunes that low? What signals did you hear? Nyquist tells us that the highest frequency you could modulate on that would be 50 mHz, well below the range of human hearing.
When they would have sold a bootleg book nobody would have demanded them to go out and break into their customer's houses and get the books back.
Retrieving all the physical copies of a book is a difficulty that makes using that method to mitigate the damage to the copyright holder impractical, and no court would award damages just because Amazon didn't break into people's houses to retrieve them. The court may "suggest" that Amazon send a letter to all purchasers of record offering to buy the books back, but they certainly wouldn't expect outright breaking and entering to achieve that goal.
Electronic delivery is different. It is easy to mitigate the damage by removing the electronic copy. A court would wonder why Amazon did not take such action, given that Amazon could easily do so and their terms of service say that they reserve the right to do so. By taking no action to mitigate the damages, the courts would have every reason to apply punitive and compensatory damages.
You can't tell me they couldn't have solved this exactly the same way.
Yes, I can tell you that because it is the truth. Amazon simply did not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts and fines to make a point about copyright on your behalf when their vendor was at fault and they couldn't have legally sold the book in the first place. If you ran the company, you could make the opposite choice and sacrifice money for your beliefs, but you don't.
I'm sorry you cannot buy whatever it is you want to buy anymore, but that's life.
Maybe charity would work if people had any money left to give to charity, but unfortunately the government takes a huge cut to pay for social services. Not that I am in favor of other areas of waste in the government, either.
It isn't even an issue of having money left over to give. The lack of giving to charity is a direct and obvious side effect of teaching people that government is the solution to every problem. The natural question is, why should I give more of my money to a charity when I'm already giving lots of my money to the government to use for charitable purposes? If only those damn rich people paid their damn fair share all the poverty problems could be solved by the government.
Headline: The Case For a Global, Compulsory Bug Bounty
If this happened in the US, I would relocate to another country, which I'd rather not do.
You'd have to move to another planet. "Global" kinda makes country boundaries irrelevant. Perhaps you could trade a few choice vulnerabilities you've found to the Chinese for a ride on one of their moon probes?
Slashdot Mirror
Creationists believe 'God intentionally did it all exactly as it is'.
Not all of them.
Evolution implies god had no direct hand in the changes.
Who created the physical laws that drive the natural selection process?
The only possible way to rationalize evolution is to completely dismiss the message, the messenger and reference to it as evil, a lie or just wrong.
Or to realize that it is just one tool in the toolbox of an omniscient being. That it is the natural result of a set of complex physical laws that came from somewhere.
I mean, evolution on one hand and a personal god on the other are really incompatible ideas.
No, they actually aren't.
It's creationism vs. "evolution as the origin of life" that are incompatible. Evolution as "change over time" isn't. The former is a purely religious debate -- how did it happen when nobody was there to observe -- vs. scientific -- how might it have happened and/or what happens today? It is not incompatible to believe that there is a being that created the universe with a wonderful and complex intricacy that scientists spend their lives studying and describing. I think that it would be quite likely for God to have done that, in fact.
What are more incompatible (but still not unreconcilable) are literalism and evolution. "God created ..." and "day" are sticking points if you assume fully literal interpretations of those words. But nothing says how He created it, and there are already interpretations of prophecy where a "day" doesn't mean a literal day. Would it be fair to say that "creating the physical laws and sandbox in which they apply" counts as "creating" just as much as "passing laws to fund and making speeches to promote" something counts as "creating"?
Now, before you leap up and say "evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life", well, the fact that this debate is creationism vs. evolution kind of shows that many people do consider evolution to include the origin of life and not just adaptation of existing life over time.
ATMs don't store meaningful account data. That data is held by the banks and transmitted via the processors.
I didn't say the ATM stored the data. I said "By grabbing account data from every person who uses the machine". When you stick your card in the face of the ATM and enter your pin code, the COMPUTER processes that and sends it over the net. Oh, look, the BIOS has been hacked so that it sends your account data and pin out over that network to someone in China. They're getting everything that appears on your magstripe, not just the account number. From that they can duplicate your card.
If I get your account data, I can clean out your account. If I get a hundred people's data, I can clean out 100 people's accounts. You probably won't notice I've done that until your next statement comes out, or if you try to make a withdrawal the next day and cannot. I might not even make the first illicit transaction for a month so nobody will know for a month.
If I pull all the cash from the machine the bank will know that as soon as it happens. The machine will report back to mama "I'm empty, come feed me." They won't even have to send anyone out to see the pry marks, they'll know there is a problem because the record of withdrawals won't cover the amount of cash missing.
So THAT'S the answer to the question "why not just steal the cash".
Color me puzzled, but if you already have already physically broken into the ATM to gain access to the USB port, why not just grab the cash instead?
Because that would be easily detected and would be a one-shot win. By grabbing account data from every person who uses the machine you can clean out accounts -- which would be a lot more than the cash in the machine.
I don't know any Linux or unix machine which would be compromised merely by plugging a memory stick.
My Acer netbook reflashes the BIOS if it is turned on with a USB stick containing a file of a certain name in place. If you control the BIOS, you control the computer.
This feature truly is a good thing, since turning the netbook off improperly while running some linux versions bricks it.
- Allow an independent organization the authority to audit the media for sensationalism, and fine them.
This, unfortunately, would violate the first amendment, and it would never be acceptable to those it was intended to regulate. They have limited time and limited resources to present a potentially large amount of information to the viewers/readers, and your "sensationalism" is their "edited to fit the space available".
When are we going to stop allowing greed to dictate our "news" ?
The day we socialize all media and pay for it through tax dollars. The Beeb has a reputation because of that, and US "public television" tries to claim they do because they claim they aren't advertiser supported. Unfortunately, they are clearly advertiser supported ("Buy the DVD of this series from ... for $X" is an ad, and arguably "This program is made possible by funding from XYZ corporation, selling impressive widgets at 3rd and Main for the last 23 years..."). But advertiser supported TV will always have a basis in "eyes", and thus "greed" (a now meaningless word since all commercial activity is labelled as such).
The answer is "never". The modern economy is built on a "race to the bottom" mentality.
The modern newsroom is built on the "race to the first" and "race to the most impressive", which results in a race to the bottom.
Advertisers pay for eyes. Eyes come attached to people who want to know FIRST the most IMPRESSIVE news. "There's a gunman holed up in a house on 51st and Mainwaring, and Mark Flarky is in the field with our Live Team Coverage..."
One night it was dumping snow on the city and pretty much everyone knew it. I was listening to the local station's VHF radio channel where they coordinated remotes, and they were rushing to the hospital for something. I listened to them driving through the heavy snow, then raising and pointing the microwave dish to get the critical live feed. I turned the TV on to see what was so critical. Literally, the report was "it is snowing really hard and you shouldn't be out on the roads unless it is an emergency ...". D'oh. Risking lives so they could be first with the live information that anyone who looked out the window would know.
If you can find the local station's coordination frequencies, they're a hoot to listen to. I expect that most are done using cell phones today, but you never know.
I am a person making comments in English on a Computer.
And by implication a non-person not making comments in Swahili on a bit of parchment doesn't have any right to an opinion, huh?
Well, I'm a non-person not making comments in Swahili on a bit of parchment, you insensitive clod.
In Oklahoma it is illegal to get a fish drunk. Now, work on the morality aspect of that one if you will.
Easy. If fish are people, too, and have feelings and thought, as some would argue, then getting a fish drunk against it's will is just as unethical as dropping a roofie in some girl's drink.
Since your link doesn't say when the law was passed, we can just assume that Oklahoma is at the very forefront of animal rights issues since they've had laws regarding them for so long.
Yes, they can find the account name on the "metadata" just like they find the account name on the ISP account that had the lease on the IP address. If anyone even hints that the account name on the latter proves that they used the IP address to do something there would he hundreds of derogatory postings on /. telling them they're ignorant, stupid, a moron, or an **AA shill. But when the NSA says they can't tie a phone number to a specific caller, they're liars and evil.
If **AA cannot do it with an IP address even though they claim they can, then the NSA cannot do the analogous operation on a phone number and they are correct when they say they cannot.
The results of a hindcast are never presented as real world data.
A. That you know of.
B. There was a conditional clause involved that included a complete loss of valuable real data. If the data was valuable and there is a model that can recreate it, it can be done.
C. If you know about hindcasting, then you know that modelers, as a regular course of business, create "new old data" which they then compare to the real old data. Saying "modelers don't create data" is wrong; they don't routinely or honestly create what they will call real data.
D. Even that last statement isn't totally true. In ocean modeling it is not unheard of for a model output (created data) to be used to correct some real-world measurements for parameters that cannot easily be measured. For example, if tide level data is required from a place that doesn't have a tide gauge, the modeled tide level from a validated model may be used. This leads to second generation "real" data that is directly dependent upon model output.
E. And again, "whoosh". It was a joke. "Woot woot!"
Academics already write "publish" into the grants they get, or they ought to do so. "Publish" is not the same as "put all the data up in an organized manner for everyone to come use", however. And even being able to put it all up for casual use can be a costly venture. I'd estimate, ballpark, that it would take 12 months of full time staff to digitize the video tapes I have that are raw data just on the off chance that someone would want to use that data for something. Add several thousand dollars for a multi-Tb disk array to hold it, and another six months to catalog it.
And then should someone come along to use it, staff time to explain and help the person.
Printing money is one solution. Not a very good one.
And look up the word "hindcast" if you don't think modelers don't create "old" data.
That's very interesting! We had record low temperatures here a couple weeks ago. Colder than I've ever experienced in my life and I've been living here for 30 years. Exciting times! But, unfortunately two data points is not enough to make any kind of conclusion about changes in the global climate.
Record cold here, too. Now we have three points, and it's two to one in favor of global cooling. Woot woot!
We need lots of data to examine climate change, which has been collected for that very reason. It'd be a shame to lose it.
Don't fear. If we lose any real data, the atmospheric modelers will happily create new old data.
Put it on the web.
Who pays for that? Disks and servers and networks cost money. Academics rarely have that just sitting unused.
I've found dead links to data in peer reviewed papers published just a week or less prior to reading them, sometimes these links were never valid to begin with.
Maybe the peer-review process should be shorter, or you should keep up with current journals and not depend on ten year old articles?
Seriously though. maintenance of data requires money. I have 22 years worth of data here. Much of it is raw video on VHS tapes. Much of it is on old floppies. Much of it is on TK70 tapes. Much of it is on early versions of magnetoptical disks. I don't have anything that reads any of those formats anymore.
Who pays to keep copying old data onto new media as new media are developed and old media readers break? Not the funding agencies. They don't even pay for upkeep of the data that I do have online.
When you go from a good manufacturing job to unemployment to flipping burgers you are a victory in the unemployment statistics, politicians will cheer their success at reducing unemployment.
That's better than "go from good manufacturing job to no job to running out of unemployment insurance to giving up looking" which also counts as a success at reducing unemployment numbers.
Show me a single congressman (house or senate) that left "public service" poorer than they started.
Harry Truman. When he ended his 2nd term, all he had was his old WW1 Army pension to fall back on.
This contains an interesting summary of Truman's salary history.
So, he went into public service making about zero, starting with a judicial position at $3465 a year. He left the Presidency and started a military pension at $13500 a year. He then picked up another $25k a year retroactively starting in 1954.
I'd say going from zero to $38k a year is not leaving public service poorer than he started. It's not the lavish pensions pols get today, but it's still not poorer.
As for political donations for personal use, the same source reports:
So, a political supporter donated a huge sum by buying the existing debt on the new Senator's failed clothing store and letting him pay it off cheap.
Heck even with a 'phone' it's useful. Imagine you arrive in Hong Kong at midnight and you want to move your phone to Vodaphone. You don't have to seek out some store and buy a SIM - Just happens presto.
When I travel with my phone, I don't even want to turn it on before I put in a new SIM for the local system. Turn it on, it registers with the local carrier and your home carrier starts forwarding calls to it -- at international rates.
I certainly don't want "presto" reprogramming my SIM. I don't want to have to call my home carrier to tell them to move it to X, and then X to have them move it back, and have one or both of them charge me for the privilege of screwing it up so I have no working phone at all. No thanks. That's one of the benefits of having GSM versus whatever. The phone is the SIM, and I can carry more than one to be more than one thing. And I can use the second SIM in my backup phone without it costing me a second plan on both carriers.
You're missing the point. Only a dumb chat bot would take his typo literally
Who took it literally? I think I was being very kind in pointing out the typo by using gentle sarcasm. Perhaps my saying that 50 mHz is "well below" human hearing instead of "practically fucking DC" confused you?
This is "news for nerds." Any self-respecting nerd that doesn't know the SI system of prefixes should just turn the computer off and go back to bed. Trying to insult the messenger for a failure to preview a posting and being NINE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE WRONG is just pathetic.
Back when the 486dx4 was out, I'd tune my FM radio to ~100mHz
Wow. You have a radio that tunes that low? What signals did you hear? Nyquist tells us that the highest frequency you could modulate on that would be 50 mHz, well below the range of human hearing.
When they would have sold a bootleg book nobody would have demanded them to go out and break into their customer's houses and get the books back.
Retrieving all the physical copies of a book is a difficulty that makes using that method to mitigate the damage to the copyright holder impractical, and no court would award damages just because Amazon didn't break into people's houses to retrieve them. The court may "suggest" that Amazon send a letter to all purchasers of record offering to buy the books back, but they certainly wouldn't expect outright breaking and entering to achieve that goal.
Electronic delivery is different. It is easy to mitigate the damage by removing the electronic copy. A court would wonder why Amazon did not take such action, given that Amazon could easily do so and their terms of service say that they reserve the right to do so. By taking no action to mitigate the damages, the courts would have every reason to apply punitive and compensatory damages.
You can't tell me they couldn't have solved this exactly the same way.
Yes, I can tell you that because it is the truth. Amazon simply did not want to spend the money on lawyers and courts and fines to make a point about copyright on your behalf when their vendor was at fault and they couldn't have legally sold the book in the first place. If you ran the company, you could make the opposite choice and sacrifice money for your beliefs, but you don't.
I'm sorry you cannot buy whatever it is you want to buy anymore, but that's life.
Maybe charity would work if people had any money left to give to charity, but unfortunately the government takes a huge cut to pay for social services. Not that I am in favor of other areas of waste in the government, either.
It isn't even an issue of having money left over to give. The lack of giving to charity is a direct and obvious side effect of teaching people that government is the solution to every problem. The natural question is, why should I give more of my money to a charity when I'm already giving lots of my money to the government to use for charitable purposes? If only those damn rich people paid their damn fair share all the poverty problems could be solved by the government.
If this happened in the US, I would relocate to another country, which I'd rather not do.
You'd have to move to another planet. "Global" kinda makes country boundaries irrelevant. Perhaps you could trade a few choice vulnerabilities you've found to the Chinese for a ride on one of their moon probes?
Not to mention, there are a lot of small companies, small foundations, and open source projects which could never afford such prices.
Who pays when a bug is found in the Linux kernel?