I'm still not seeing it. Uber fares can vary, such as when surge pricing is on. The passenger was offered a certain ride for a certain price, and agreed to it. The passenger didn't know how the price was calculated. Does Uber widely advertise how its fares are calculated, to the extent that deviating from the algorithm is fraud?
The problem here is that a manufacturer who makes a solid effort to do everything right could suddenly have to replace almost every instance of a certain product line. It may not be immediately obvious how to make a device that's immune to that particular attack If the manufacturer doesn't have a satisfactory replacement, what happens?
What happens if a company manufactures a lock and it's forced? Does the company have to replace that lock?
No matter what, this is a new sort of risk for the company. Typically, manufacturers of consumer goods haven't worried about external attack on their products costing them lots of money.
What I am trying to say is that destroying people's property on the assumption that it might be a threat later on is wrong. Nobody's claiming that the bricking was justified because the devices were actually causing harm, and argument I'd be more sympathetic to. Nobody's pointing to smoke and flames. People are just saying that, if it might present a threat, the intruders are justified in bricking it.
As to whether it's possible to brick a device that's not a public threat, I don't know. It seems likely that a brickable device could be used as a tool by bad guys, but I don't know that to be true in general.
Your arguments are imaginary. Please rotate them ninety degrees and post again.
Seriously, I have no idea where you get the idea of what I'd do as President, I don't claim that Socialists and Democrats are the only humanitarian parties (plural), and I recognize that there are more options than (do nothing) and (strike an airfield with Tomahawks).
Okay, please let me know when we ignored genocidal dictators, other than Hitler, and it wound up costing us big. Heck, we successfully ignore most genocide not done by dictators, and aside from a few people saying something should be done nothing much happens over here.
The low-user drugs don't tend to pay very well, so the companies need more government support to make it profitable. This is because of a deliberate government decision to finance these drugs.
Isolationism is an incredibly stupid idea, both times America ever tried it there was a world war,
The US spent a LOT of time being isolationist, and there were only three World Wars during those times (and US intervention in the 1805-1815 World War was tangential at best). The first and second World Wars at the time were going to happen no matter what the US did. What we call WWII was started without US involvement, and at first Chamberlain was trying to keep the US at arm's length, figuring (correctly) that the US didn't have the best interests of the British Empire at heart.
one of those times ended with the largest military attack on home soil in history.
Hawaii was questionably home soil at the time. It was a US possession, not a State. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a two-wave carrier strike against military targets. That had the most aircraft of any battle on US (more or less) soil, but it was nowhere near the most lethal battle on US soil or the most consequential.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump is the President of the United States and gave orders for the strike.
What do you think the leader of the United States should do when confronted with a chemical weapons attack?
First, that question is far too context-dependent to be answered as is. Second, we weren't confronted with it. It happened in an area where we don't have people and is definitely nowhere near any US territory. Historically, we've been pretty good at ignoring bad stuff done elsewhere.
Actually, IIRC the price for a new car, not too cheap but definitely not high end, adjusted for inflation, would buy a new car today, not too cheap but definitely not high end.
Typically it doesn't. There are exceptions, like Hitler (Japan was never a dictatorship; it''s hard to figure what the government actually was), but most genocides have barely affected Western nations.
Disbanding the Republican Guard was a good idea. Disbanding the whole Iraqi Army was stupid. The Republican Guard got all the politically reliable soldiers and officers, meaning that the rest of the army was reasonably safe to maintain.
In addition to having no good plan, what plans there were were not followed. The dissolution of the Iraqi Army was not in the plan, but was an initiative from the person in charge in Iraq at the time. Personally, I think it was a stupid decision.
the Iraqis could've used several more years of training and support before being left to fend for themselves.
How many more years? How many more decades? The US started nation-building in 2003, and left in 2011. That's eight years. If the Iraqi army wasn't trained by then, what would it take? If the Iraqi government wasn't ready to stay in power over the country, how long would that have taken? It looked to me like the government and army were relying on US troops, and that the proper thing to do was to give them a deadline and let them deal with it. Bush gave them a 2011 deadline, and Obama followed it, the Iraqi government being unwilling to agree to more US occupation.
Obama is incapable of negotiating a deal. So is Bush, and Trump. Negotiations require at least two parties, and in this case one wasn't interested.
As far as extending the US stay in Iraq, I was never clear on what good that would do. It seemed to me that we could leave immediately and let Iraq fall apart, or stay a while, leave, and let Iraq fall apart. The Iraqi government didn't seem to be doing much to be able to maintain control once the US left, and I'm not sure there's anything it could have done.
The problem is you're thinking about it from your point of view - i.e. that of a rational actor.
I always start there, and sometimes come up with some interesting conclusions. I never assume irrational behavior; instead I look for possible reasons. Sometimes it's different goals than people expect, sometimes it's different knowledge.
It was obviously* not a chemical or biological warfare facility. The morning after it had been bombed, the Iraqis had reporters from various countries in it, without taking the time to decontaminate first.
*In retrospect, anyway. If it had been obvious beforehand, it would not have been attacked.
Killing people off our soil can have the side effect of more people wanting to kill us. I personally have avoided kill-or-be-killed situations quite successfully in a lifetime about twice the length of yours.
Tell you what. You might install a revolving door and invite the crack junkies in. I can't know you won't. Is it OK if I burn your house down now to avoid that problem?
I'm cool with that. However, if you walk into my yard and take my hose and start spraying down my house because it could conceivably catch fire, I'm going to have words with you. Particularly if the windows are open.
When my iPod went through a wash cycle, it stopped working. I sent it to Apple, expecting to be told that it would cost $X to repair. I got a replacement back (the engraving was slightly different) for free. Surprised me.
This is potentially a real problem for manufacturers.
The device isn't failing because of manufacturing defects or ordinary wear and tear or anything predictable. It's failing because it's been deliberately attacked. If I bought a computer, and someone else shot it, I'd expect the manufacturer to not be responsible.
It poses a considerable risk to a manufacturer. While the manufacturer might well have put in deficient security, but even if the manufacturer worked hard on security there are no guarantees. If a manufacturer sells a lot of X, and the bad guys find a security hole, the manufacturer could be on the hook for an unlimited number of X without receiving any payment, since a customer could find a series of Xs bricked.
What's the fraud against the passenger? GP was told the trip would cost $73, and GP did indeed pay $73. Unless Uber had assured GP that the trip would be less at some point in the past, it's a matter of buying a service at a known price. It may be an inflated price, but that isn't fraud. The driver is contractually supposed to get a certain percentage of what the passenger pays, and didn't. That is illegal, and since Uber lied to the driver it's also fraud.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm still not seeing it. Uber fares can vary, such as when surge pricing is on. The passenger was offered a certain ride for a certain price, and agreed to it. The passenger didn't know how the price was calculated. Does Uber widely advertise how its fares are calculated, to the extent that deviating from the algorithm is fraud?
The problem here is that a manufacturer who makes a solid effort to do everything right could suddenly have to replace almost every instance of a certain product line. It may not be immediately obvious how to make a device that's immune to that particular attack If the manufacturer doesn't have a satisfactory replacement, what happens?
What happens if a company manufactures a lock and it's forced? Does the company have to replace that lock?
No matter what, this is a new sort of risk for the company. Typically, manufacturers of consumer goods haven't worried about external attack on their products costing them lots of money.
What I am trying to say is that destroying people's property on the assumption that it might be a threat later on is wrong. Nobody's claiming that the bricking was justified because the devices were actually causing harm, and argument I'd be more sympathetic to. Nobody's pointing to smoke and flames. People are just saying that, if it might present a threat, the intruders are justified in bricking it.
As to whether it's possible to brick a device that's not a public threat, I don't know. It seems likely that a brickable device could be used as a tool by bad guys, but I don't know that to be true in general.
Your arguments are imaginary. Please rotate them ninety degrees and post again.
Seriously, I have no idea where you get the idea of what I'd do as President, I don't claim that Socialists and Democrats are the only humanitarian parties (plural), and I recognize that there are more options than (do nothing) and (strike an airfield with Tomahawks).
Okay, please let me know when we ignored genocidal dictators, other than Hitler, and it wound up costing us big. Heck, we successfully ignore most genocide not done by dictators, and aside from a few people saying something should be done nothing much happens over here.
The low-user drugs don't tend to pay very well, so the companies need more government support to make it profitable. This is because of a deliberate government decision to finance these drugs.
The US spent a LOT of time being isolationist, and there were only three World Wars during those times (and US intervention in the 1805-1815 World War was tangential at best). The first and second World Wars at the time were going to happen no matter what the US did. What we call WWII was started without US involvement, and at first Chamberlain was trying to keep the US at arm's length, figuring (correctly) that the US didn't have the best interests of the British Empire at heart.
Hawaii was questionably home soil at the time. It was a US possession, not a State. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese launched a two-wave carrier strike against military targets. That had the most aircraft of any battle on US (more or less) soil, but it was nowhere near the most lethal battle on US soil or the most consequential.
Hey, they've demonstrated one shot-one kill capability against civilian airliners.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Trump is the President of the United States and gave orders for the strike.
First, that question is far too context-dependent to be answered as is. Second, we weren't confronted with it. It happened in an area where we don't have people and is definitely nowhere near any US territory. Historically, we've been pretty good at ignoring bad stuff done elsewhere.
Actually, IIRC the price for a new car, not too cheap but definitely not high end, adjusted for inflation, would buy a new car today, not too cheap but definitely not high end.
Typically it doesn't. There are exceptions, like Hitler (Japan was never a dictatorship; it''s hard to figure what the government actually was), but most genocides have barely affected Western nations.
Disbanding the Republican Guard was a good idea. Disbanding the whole Iraqi Army was stupid. The Republican Guard got all the politically reliable soldiers and officers, meaning that the rest of the army was reasonably safe to maintain.
In addition to having no good plan, what plans there were were not followed. The dissolution of the Iraqi Army was not in the plan, but was an initiative from the person in charge in Iraq at the time. Personally, I think it was a stupid decision.
How many more years? How many more decades? The US started nation-building in 2003, and left in 2011. That's eight years. If the Iraqi army wasn't trained by then, what would it take? If the Iraqi government wasn't ready to stay in power over the country, how long would that have taken? It looked to me like the government and army were relying on US troops, and that the proper thing to do was to give them a deadline and let them deal with it. Bush gave them a 2011 deadline, and Obama followed it, the Iraqi government being unwilling to agree to more US occupation.
Obama is incapable of negotiating a deal. So is Bush, and Trump. Negotiations require at least two parties, and in this case one wasn't interested.
As far as extending the US stay in Iraq, I was never clear on what good that would do. It seemed to me that we could leave immediately and let Iraq fall apart, or stay a while, leave, and let Iraq fall apart. The Iraqi government didn't seem to be doing much to be able to maintain control once the US left, and I'm not sure there's anything it could have done.
A lot of us aren't surprised by Trump's actions at all. Doesn't mean we're happy about them.
I always start there, and sometimes come up with some interesting conclusions. I never assume irrational behavior; instead I look for possible reasons. Sometimes it's different goals than people expect, sometimes it's different knowledge.
It was obviously* not a chemical or biological warfare facility. The morning after it had been bombed, the Iraqis had reporters from various countries in it, without taking the time to decontaminate first.
*In retrospect, anyway. If it had been obvious beforehand, it would not have been attacked.
Killing people off our soil can have the side effect of more people wanting to kill us. I personally have avoided kill-or-be-killed situations quite successfully in a lifetime about twice the length of yours.
Tell you what. You might install a revolving door and invite the crack junkies in. I can't know you won't. Is it OK if I burn your house down now to avoid that problem?
I'm cool with that. However, if you walk into my yard and take my hose and start spraying down my house because it could conceivably catch fire, I'm going to have words with you. Particularly if the windows are open.
When my iPod went through a wash cycle, it stopped working. I sent it to Apple, expecting to be told that it would cost $X to repair. I got a replacement back (the engraving was slightly different) for free. Surprised me.
This is potentially a real problem for manufacturers.
The device isn't failing because of manufacturing defects or ordinary wear and tear or anything predictable. It's failing because it's been deliberately attacked. If I bought a computer, and someone else shot it, I'd expect the manufacturer to not be responsible.
It poses a considerable risk to a manufacturer. While the manufacturer might well have put in deficient security, but even if the manufacturer worked hard on security there are no guarantees. If a manufacturer sells a lot of X, and the bad guys find a security hole, the manufacturer could be on the hook for an unlimited number of X without receiving any payment, since a customer could find a series of Xs bricked.
For some reason, this reminds me of Team Rocket's entrance act.
What's the fraud against the passenger? GP was told the trip would cost $73, and GP did indeed pay $73. Unless Uber had assured GP that the trip would be less at some point in the past, it's a matter of buying a service at a known price. It may be an inflated price, but that isn't fraud. The driver is contractually supposed to get a certain percentage of what the passenger pays, and didn't. That is illegal, and since Uber lied to the driver it's also fraud.