The form of government funding is important here. Suppose you want a college to get $10M from the government. If you just give it to the college, the college can use it. (I'm ignoring the question of what the money will be spent on here.) If you give it to the students as tuition support, the college has to raise its tuition to collect that $10M. This means that any student who doesn't get government support gets screwed.
One of my cow-orkers says he was way slowed down by the patch. Currently, we have a volunteer for the patch who will tell us what it does to our compile times.
I'd have to get a new motherboard. Of course, if replacing my current Intel CPU would require a new motherboard, it makes the decision easier. Besides, I can just buy an AMD CPU that isn't susceptible to Meltdown, and I don't think Intel's selling one now.
There's also the question of what the computer is doing. If the computer is doing one specific task (email, WoW, whatever), the question is whether there's enough CPU to do that one task, and even with a 10% reduction in speed the answer is "almost certainly". If the computer is compiling a large codebase (one of my common activities at work), then a 10% slowdown might mean I surf Slashdot 10% more, and get less work done. If it's a server, a 10% reduction in performance can mean having to have 11% more servers, which is going to be more than 11% more expense.
I think you'll find that both went beyond their job requirements, and I don't mean that as compliments. It may be worth noting that nobody was forced to work in concentration camps or death camps or murder squads. If you had qualms, you could say so, and be transferred somewhere else with no penalty.
I used to hate doing my state income taxes. (There was the time I calculated the taxes twice, and my wife once. We sent in the lowest of the three different dollar amounts. I'm not going to commit fraud, but I will understand that which is not clear in my favor.) My Federal income taxes cost me more, but they were a lot easier to do. Then my state simplified the process, and now it doesn't bother me.
Taxes in the US are generally pretty low, but the tax laws and regulations can be onerous.
In general, treat law enforcement as an adversary, although not an enemy. It's normally OK to call for a police officer if you need one, but when they're taking the initiative while investigating you they are not trying to be your friend, no matter how it may sound.
There's no general reason to treat the rest of the government as an adversary.
The real question is whether the driver is properly insured, and that's question for the policy in question. If your insurance policy doesn't cover you for some situation, and no other insurance applies, then it's illegal to drive in that situation. You can nitpick as you like, but it's pointless without having the text of the actual policy.
I'd expect insurance policies to consider driving for Uber to be commercial driving, no matter what you're doing. It's been around for a while. The insurance company can write the policy that way, and the driver can pay for that policy, find another policy, meet the criteria for self-insurance, or stay home. If the driver is on the public road without an active insurance policy, that's an illegal act.
You can get in trouble for destroying evidence during a legal search. You don't have to take any action to preserve evidence or cooperate in any way, but actively interfering in the process is illegal.
If you can give me a ride, you can ask me for money. At that point, it's commercial driving, and you need to be properly licensed and insured. Insurance is the biggie here: you need to have some way to pay at least a minimum amount should you cause an accident. Otherwise, you're endangering people without having the legal right to do so.
Plenty of places destroy business records so they can't be subpoena'd. They have policies saying to delete this at that time. That's perfectly legal. Libraries started deleting checkout records after return of the materials after the Patriot Act was passed. Again, this is a policy put in place, and it's perfectly legal. It doesn't matter how much the policy is tailored to possible legal trouble it's a policy.
In neither of these cases is anyone deleting anything because they think it might be involved in an investigation. They're deleting things because there's a published policy to delete them at such and such a time. They may have to suspend the policy and keep records longer than the policy say once they're legally informed to do so.
If it were legal to delete anything up until there's a specific request to preserve information, there'd be no need to have a formal retention policy, which companies tend to have.
As long as there's an Uber driver on the road, I'm potentially involved. If an Uber driver hits me while on the way to pick up a passenger, my insurance has to pay for the damages, because the driver is unlikely to have commercial insurance and Uber won't cover it. If an Uber driver has been working for thirty-six hours straight to try to make money, the driver is more likely to hit me if I'm in the area.
If millions of people around the world hired mob enforcers, I'd still want the mob out of business.
Suppose I'm a private US citizen, and someone commits a crime against me. I can't prosecute the criminal for the crime. That's done by the government, with the county attorney's office deciding who to prosecute. If it harms me (and crimes against me generally do), I can sue the perpetrator in civil court for damages.
Moreover, criminal convictions are by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil cases are decided by preponderance of the evidence. If I've got strong but not conclusive evidence that X did Y to me, I can win in a civil suit, but there may not be enough evidence for it to be worth prosecuting.
Yeah, in the US we prove guilt first — if we can — and then punish accordingly.
That's the theory. In practice, bad things can happen that aren't legally punishment. You can have your stuff searched and seized on probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's with the government doing the legal thing every step of the way, which doesn't always happen. You can be in a position where you feel compelled to pay a lawyer a lot of money, if you're being investigated. You can be indicted on plausibility arguments; the grand jury is supposed to issue an indictment if the prosecution's case would be sufficient to convict if there was no successful defense. You can be arrested and held on bail.
You could design districts to get any desired result, but that's gerrymandering. In nonpartisan redistricting, we're not going to get things perfect.
I don't see any need to make districts of equal area as opposed to equal population. Naturally, we're going to want more polling places in spread-out districts, but that's not a problem.
Sometimes we need to transmit secure information without a previous secure key exchange. Hence, asymmetric ciphers. One good asymmetric cipher is arguably all we need, but the processing is much slower than AES. We really don't need more than one good asymmetric and one good symmetric cipher.
If a company releases radioactive or carcinogenic waste in a town, and five people get cancer in a period where you'd statistically expect one, by your criteria there's no grounds for a lawsuit. No individual can say their cancer is caused by the waste, because there was a reasonable statistical chance it would have happened anyway.
If you want something really specific...
Hurricane Sandy had a big storm surge that flooded a lot of New York, causing a lot of damage. Global warming had increased sea level, so the storm surge was somewhat higher than it would have been with the same storm and no global warming. This meant that the surge went further, considerably further because the ground isn't at a 45-degree angle, and caused more damage. The extra damage is clearly measurable, and clearly caused by AGW.
It's perfectly legal and OK to buy dangerous goods, and NYC has done a lot more to reduce per capita CO2 production than most US cities. It's also perfectly legal to say your goods aren't dangerous if that's what you honestly believe.
What the oil companies did is to find out that global warming was happening (there's internal documents) and lie about it to keep their businesses going. That's fraud. This almost certainly increased overall global CO2 emissions, and that harms NYC.
What liquor company has said its products won't get you a DUI if you drink and drive? It's not a matter of selling a potentially dangerous product, it's a matter of lying about it.
My PIN is four digits, although I can set it to be longer.
I don't trust data that's only in one place, particularly if I that place is normally my shirt pocket. I keep it backed up.
The problem I usually have with passphrases is that, while I can remember it, I have trouble remembering little details. Did I capitalize this? How many spaces after the period, or was that a semicolon?
Beginning to understand? I've been saying things like that for a long time. I don't trust governments. I don't trust corporations. I like having tensions between them.
Slashdot Mirror
Who found the money for that? Is it the University being more efficient, or getting additional money somehow?
The form of government funding is important here. Suppose you want a college to get $10M from the government. If you just give it to the college, the college can use it. (I'm ignoring the question of what the money will be spent on here.) If you give it to the students as tuition support, the college has to raise its tuition to collect that $10M. This means that any student who doesn't get government support gets screwed.
One of my cow-orkers says he was way slowed down by the patch. Currently, we have a volunteer for the patch who will tell us what it does to our compile times.
I'd have to get a new motherboard. Of course, if replacing my current Intel CPU would require a new motherboard, it makes the decision easier. Besides, I can just buy an AMD CPU that isn't susceptible to Meltdown, and I don't think Intel's selling one now.
Which is why I haven't mentioned Windows 10 in a while.
There's also the question of what the computer is doing. If the computer is doing one specific task (email, WoW, whatever), the question is whether there's enough CPU to do that one task, and even with a 10% reduction in speed the answer is "almost certainly". If the computer is compiling a large codebase (one of my common activities at work), then a 10% slowdown might mean I surf Slashdot 10% more, and get less work done. If it's a server, a 10% reduction in performance can mean having to have 11% more servers, which is going to be more than 11% more expense.
I think you'll find that both went beyond their job requirements, and I don't mean that as compliments. It may be worth noting that nobody was forced to work in concentration camps or death camps or murder squads. If you had qualms, you could say so, and be transferred somewhere else with no penalty.
I used to hate doing my state income taxes. (There was the time I calculated the taxes twice, and my wife once. We sent in the lowest of the three different dollar amounts. I'm not going to commit fraud, but I will understand that which is not clear in my favor.) My Federal income taxes cost me more, but they were a lot easier to do. Then my state simplified the process, and now it doesn't bother me.
Taxes in the US are generally pretty low, but the tax laws and regulations can be onerous.
In general, treat law enforcement as an adversary, although not an enemy. It's normally OK to call for a police officer if you need one, but when they're taking the initiative while investigating you they are not trying to be your friend, no matter how it may sound.
There's no general reason to treat the rest of the government as an adversary.
The real question is whether the driver is properly insured, and that's question for the policy in question. If your insurance policy doesn't cover you for some situation, and no other insurance applies, then it's illegal to drive in that situation. You can nitpick as you like, but it's pointless without having the text of the actual policy.
I'd expect insurance policies to consider driving for Uber to be commercial driving, no matter what you're doing. It's been around for a while. The insurance company can write the policy that way, and the driver can pay for that policy, find another policy, meet the criteria for self-insurance, or stay home. If the driver is on the public road without an active insurance policy, that's an illegal act.
You can get in trouble for destroying evidence during a legal search. You don't have to take any action to preserve evidence or cooperate in any way, but actively interfering in the process is illegal.
If you can give me a ride, you can ask me for money. At that point, it's commercial driving, and you need to be properly licensed and insured. Insurance is the biggie here: you need to have some way to pay at least a minimum amount should you cause an accident. Otherwise, you're endangering people without having the legal right to do so.
Plenty of places destroy business records so they can't be subpoena'd. They have policies saying to delete this at that time. That's perfectly legal. Libraries started deleting checkout records after return of the materials after the Patriot Act was passed. Again, this is a policy put in place, and it's perfectly legal. It doesn't matter how much the policy is tailored to possible legal trouble it's a policy.
In neither of these cases is anyone deleting anything because they think it might be involved in an investigation. They're deleting things because there's a published policy to delete them at such and such a time. They may have to suspend the policy and keep records longer than the policy say once they're legally informed to do so.
If it were legal to delete anything up until there's a specific request to preserve information, there'd be no need to have a formal retention policy, which companies tend to have.
As long as there's an Uber driver on the road, I'm potentially involved. If an Uber driver hits me while on the way to pick up a passenger, my insurance has to pay for the damages, because the driver is unlikely to have commercial insurance and Uber won't cover it. If an Uber driver has been working for thirty-six hours straight to try to make money, the driver is more likely to hit me if I'm in the area.
If millions of people around the world hired mob enforcers, I'd still want the mob out of business.
Suppose I'm a private US citizen, and someone commits a crime against me. I can't prosecute the criminal for the crime. That's done by the government, with the county attorney's office deciding who to prosecute. If it harms me (and crimes against me generally do), I can sue the perpetrator in civil court for damages.
Moreover, criminal convictions are by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and civil cases are decided by preponderance of the evidence. If I've got strong but not conclusive evidence that X did Y to me, I can win in a civil suit, but there may not be enough evidence for it to be worth prosecuting.
That's the theory. In practice, bad things can happen that aren't legally punishment. You can have your stuff searched and seized on probable cause, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's with the government doing the legal thing every step of the way, which doesn't always happen. You can be in a position where you feel compelled to pay a lawyer a lot of money, if you're being investigated. You can be indicted on plausibility arguments; the grand jury is supposed to issue an indictment if the prosecution's case would be sufficient to convict if there was no successful defense. You can be arrested and held on bail.
You could design districts to get any desired result, but that's gerrymandering. In nonpartisan redistricting, we're not going to get things perfect.
I don't see any need to make districts of equal area as opposed to equal population. Naturally, we're going to want more polling places in spread-out districts, but that's not a problem.
Sometimes we need to transmit secure information without a previous secure key exchange. Hence, asymmetric ciphers. One good asymmetric cipher is arguably all we need, but the processing is much slower than AES. We really don't need more than one good asymmetric and one good symmetric cipher.
Your IPCC quote doesn't contradict what I said.
If it was DUH LAW, you can hardly blame the court for it, and hence the phrase "kangaroo court" is inappropriate.
If a company releases radioactive or carcinogenic waste in a town, and five people get cancer in a period where you'd statistically expect one, by your criteria there's no grounds for a lawsuit. No individual can say their cancer is caused by the waste, because there was a reasonable statistical chance it would have happened anyway.
If you want something really specific...
Hurricane Sandy had a big storm surge that flooded a lot of New York, causing a lot of damage. Global warming had increased sea level, so the storm surge was somewhat higher than it would have been with the same storm and no global warming. This meant that the surge went further, considerably further because the ground isn't at a 45-degree angle, and caused more damage. The extra damage is clearly measurable, and clearly caused by AGW.
It's perfectly legal and OK to buy dangerous goods, and NYC has done a lot more to reduce per capita CO2 production than most US cities. It's also perfectly legal to say your goods aren't dangerous if that's what you honestly believe.
What the oil companies did is to find out that global warming was happening (there's internal documents) and lie about it to keep their businesses going. That's fraud. This almost certainly increased overall global CO2 emissions, and that harms NYC.
What liquor company has said its products won't get you a DUI if you drink and drive? It's not a matter of selling a potentially dangerous product, it's a matter of lying about it.
My PIN is four digits, although I can set it to be longer.
I don't trust data that's only in one place, particularly if I that place is normally my shirt pocket. I keep it backed up.
The problem I usually have with passphrases is that, while I can remember it, I have trouble remembering little details. Did I capitalize this? How many spaces after the period, or was that a semicolon?
Beginning to understand? I've been saying things like that for a long time. I don't trust governments. I don't trust corporations. I like having tensions between them.