It is NOT the responsibility of those providing a free service to make it clear that they are not charging.
Instead it is the responsibility of those that wish to charge to make it clear that their product is NOT FREE.
You can not leave your crappy junk all over the street and then get upset when people pick it up.
Similarly, if you are so stupid as to leave your wireless network open without a password, there is NOTHING illegal with other people assuming your wireless network is a free network and using it to connect to the internet. Note, I am not condoning people hacking into your servers, just using your open network to access the regular internet.
Morons should NOT be allowed to take our rights and force charities to bear the responsibilities that business owners have failed to live up to.
I mean really, each one of these machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are totally ineffective.
If you want to destroy a plane, you do what the US army does and shoot down with a missile. They are cheap, costing thousands of dollars as opposed to hundreds of thousands. And you don't need to do a kamikazee run.
If you want to steel a plane and crash it into a building, then you are out of luck. The single incident that occurred worked because we did not consider it a possibility.
As soon as we knew it was possible, the passengers of United 93 did what they had to do and crashed their own plane.
The idea that it is possible to stop someone from blowing up a plane is almost as ridiculous as the idea that it would be possible for someone else to take another passenger plane hostage. The passengers know better now and we would rise up kill the terrorist with our freakin fingernails before we obeyed him.
How do I know this? Because no terrorist, not a single other incident has succeeded in the past decade of crashing a commercial plane. If the idea had any merit, they would have tried it already. Instead they know how stupid that idea is and stick to trying to blow up planes instead of taking them hostage.
And we can never stop that risk - anymore than we can stop the risk of being hit by a drunk driver. But your chance of being killed by a drunk driver is actually significant.
1. Most such crimes get ignored. Every once in a while a single unlucky criminal gets caught and people make a stink.
2. In the right situation, they make a huge stink, doing more damage to the criminal than the criminal did. I.E. Cook's Magainze's reputation may be totally destroyed by the moronic, illegal act of one editor, not the owner. The owner, who is probably a lot smarter than the editor will almost certainly end up paying the $130 donation, not to mention a lot more in legal fees and advertising/marketing to get their paper back.
3. Also note how the message gets lost with a whole bunch of people arguing about recipees being copyrightable. Irrelevant, more than a recipee was copied. Clearly the people that bring up the recipee issue are clue-less (probably did not read the article), and wasting even more effort with pointless, irrelevant foolishness
4. Another major issue is how someone got a job as an editor without knowing anything about how the business works? You pay people to write articles, you can't copy them. Thinking the internet is public domain is pretty bad - and not thinking "hey, why don't I just copy all my articles from this public domain internet" thing makes her really stupid.
5. But it also shows the general rudeness of editors. In general editors have set up a writing system that is incredibally rude to the writers. How would you feel if you were trying to sell a painting that you created and the guy said "I will only look at it if you agree not to show it to anyone else?" And then waited months to say "No Thank you." But somehow this is OK with the written word (mainly because so many people write - it is easier to try than most other art forms.) This editor clearly needs some humility, and writers in general need to get more respect.
Some of what you are describing is already checked for by standard methods, plus the fact that the votes are all in an open database.
Specifically, when counting votes, you don't just do a full count, you also break it down into X votes from Y district, and even by voting machine, which is verified independently by the voter registration rolls. So each machine has a list of the people that voted using it, the total vote count for each candidate, and the ability to check if the vote was counted.
A bunch of false ballots would pump up the total votes done and the numbers would not match.
Each independent voting machine would list the totals for each candidate and you could verify their own votes there.
Note, there is no way totally prevent fraud, but the method I describe here would require fraudulent vote counters at each and every district machine, all of whom keep quiet.
In addition, the voting record itself is public, and the software is public. This would let people prevent the lying.
It was simply a variation of the paper receipt to prove that you vote.
Or maybe he just explained it poorly. As far as I can tell from his description, you can prove tell that you voted, but you can't tell WHO your vote was for.
Besides, it's not that hard to create a paper ballot system that is secret and fair, but uses computers to speed the creation and counting.
Step 1. Have a printer kiosk that lets you select who you vote for electronically. It also shows 3 colors/icons/etc. You select a color/icon when you vote.
Step 2. The kiosk then prints out TWO identical bar coded paper receipts that does not have anything but numbers on it.
Step 3. Take bar coded paper receipt to second machine, called a reader.
Step 4. Feed one (either one) into the reader. That reader displays who you voted for, you can confirm or deny. Assuming you confirm, it keeps the one recepit and you keep your own. If you deny, it spits out the bad receipt, and you are legally required to shred both before you try again.
Step 5. To confirm your vote, you log on to a database, look for your recepit number and enter the color/icon you remembered. If you enter the wrong one, it displays a false vote without reveleaing that you entered the wrong color/icon.
Net result is that you and only you know who you voted for, and you can verify that your vote was counted.
1. Bull. The way the dimples work would INCREASE acceleration - they reduce air restiance.
2. Standards of "beauty" are relative and dynamic. Oh, the first buyers might get them because they are fuel effecient, but it would become hip and hot and suddenly everyone would say how PRETTY they are.
3. Dirt might be a problem. I don't know about that.
4. I doubt paint would be a problem, Paint is very high tech.
5. The car would not be bigger, the hood, panels, etc already stick out beyond the frame.
6. But most importantly, any fashion designer can tell you that the definition of what "looks good" is generally CREATED top down, not bottom up. It would become "pretty", just the way that bellbottoms became popular - both the original time and the revival time. Marketing and Designers determine what is pretty, not the general population.
Ever look at a court building? Do you see those long columns? And the Lintels? They were originally abhored by the Greco-roman architects. Called ugly, etc. They had to use them because it was the only way they knew to build tall buildings.
Now people think they look classic.
Similarly, if we started building dimpled cars, the first people to buy them would be the same people that bought hybrids. Soon they would develop an image of being HIP and NEW.
Before you know it, everyone would be talking about how BEAUTIFUL they are - particularly people like you who just assume that beauty standards are static and unchanging.
For those of you that don't know, Mythbusters did an episode not that long ago that confirmed that placing dimples in a car body will increase fuel effecieincy, just as it increases distance for a golfball.
Here is an article that discusses it further. I always thought the car companies are morons for not following up on this idea. What, they think it looks ugly? At least build a test car with a dimpled sheetmetal body instead of using mythbuster's clay test.
Now, some enterprising person could build a car body from scratch and truly verify if Adam and Jaime got it right.
Studies have pretty well shown that to gain 1% of the voting population, you need to double the amount of money you spend.
Most of the time the reason why the man that spent more money won is not because he bought the election but because far more people liked him and therefore far more people gave him far more money. That is, money goes to the popular candidate far easier than the rich candidate can buy popularity.
That said, in close elections, money could buy it. There are 4 tossup elections (as per the New York Times data) that are close neough for a reasonable amount of cash to buy the election.
Colorado: Buck (r) ahead of Bennet (d) by.3%. Here money could buy the election with less than double
Illionis: (r) ahead of Giannoulias (d) by 1.3%. Could buy the election for 2 times the money
West Virgina: (Manchin (d) ahead of Raese (r) by 1.9%, for a bit less than 4 times the money
All other elections are more than 2.5% difference in voting, which would require about a at least a sixfold increase in cash - and that assumes your opponent can not keep up with your spending. It is simply too expensive to buy any other election.
Bull.
Giving never miss/insta-kill/health/power for 1000 games is NOT easier than creating a single better AI that can be used for all games.
AIs have been growing in power and complexity and they will continue to do so.
They did not build in a default candidate on purpose.
What happens is that when you touch the screen to select "English" as your language, it immediately goes to the next screen where you select your candidate. But the old button that said "English" is very close to where the new button that votes for candidates appears.
So if you are slow to remove your finger from the "English" button, your finger is already on the 'vote for candidate button', resulting in what the slow voter thinks is a default vote.
This is:
1. A bad GUI design. Grade D- in my opinion for putting the touch buttons so close and keeping the touch time too short/sensitive.
2. A bad tester, if they did any. Grade F. I mean really, was this that hard to catch?
3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?
When it comes to Emergncy stuff, western medicine far outpaces homeopathy. You got a bullet in you? A surgeon can remove it.
This article is not about the emergency solutions, but about the proactive prevention. Those kind of things we are not demonstratable better at than homeopathy. That includes things like:Implanting stents (no none increase in survivability), lipitor (no proven connection between taking it and reduced chance of heart attack - it reduces chlorestal and studies have shown that people with lower chlorestal have less heart attacks but it is not known at ALL if chlorestal is the cause or just a symptom of the heart attacks), etc. Note, we don't know that this stuff doesn't work, we just haven't really tested it.
Modern medicine gets away to use the proactive prevention because of the good rep it got froim the Emergency stuff.
P.S. In the interest of total honesty, I admit that I am not a doctor, and despite my skepticism, I do take chlorestal lowering medicine.
The human eye contains rods and cones to see color. Rods detect light at 498nm frequeny, short cones peak at 420 (purple), medium cones peak at 534 nm (green) and long cones peak at 564 nm (red).
But birds have cones that can see far greater. Some birds can see as low as 375 nm. This lets them see ultraviolet.
How hard would it be to find the gene that lets birds make this kind of cone cell and add it to a human? Breed for UV colorblind birds, compare their DNA with birds that can see UV, sample the DNA and try it out on a monkey first.
P.S. the human lens tends to block light at frequencies of around 380, so we might only be able to see down to 385 nm, but that is still a boost of 35 nm, greater than the difference between green and red.
You are confusing a symbolic representation for a number because the symbol contains numbers in it.
It is physically impossible to represent certain numbers using base 10. Pi for example. Is is less obvious, but still a fact that 1/3 and 1/9 are in fact impossible to accurately represent using base 10. The.1111....33333... and.9999... are all of rather limited accuracy symbols, not numbers, just as if I were to say pi = 3.14159+ The 3.14159+ is a symbol representing Pi, not a number, similarly.9999999... is NOT a number, but is instead a symbolic representation of a number.
The fact that long division or electronic calculators come up with those results is an indication of human accounting for the limitations of our mathematical symptoms.
Here, try it in a base 8 format.
In base 8,.11111111 = 1/8 + 1/80 + 1/800....
That number, multiplied by 7 becomes.77777777777... or 7/8 + 7/80 + 7/800... You can use the same bad math you used earlier to prove that 1 =.7777777... base 8 that you used to claim that 1 =.99999 in base 10
But when you translate that back to base 10, you get.111111... base 8 =.140138888.... (base 10). Then base 8.777777... = base 10.9809722222222...
As you can quite clearly see that.980972222... is NOT equal to 1
Here, think of it like rabbits. You have 10 crates of rabbits. If the rabbit crates all have 9 male rabbits, you can mulitple 10*9 to get the 90 total rabbits. But if each crate in fact has a 4 male and 5 female rabbits, so that each crate is uncountable (just as the number of 1's in.1111111... can not be counted), then only a moron multiplies 10x9 and expects to get an accurate count of 90 rabbits. Your number is going to be off because male + female rabbits = uncountable, just as.1111111... is uncountable. It is NOT a number.
The problems with variable password rules makes it harder to create password systems. More importantly, usually we don't really need one.
Really, is there any need for a site like moviefone to have a password? I mean really, it's a freaking movie website list. Let them track you with a cookie, not a login and a password. I don't agree to give my credit card number to my grocery store permanently just to get "one click" payout, what possibly reason would I do it for a freakin movie ticket.
Honestly, even slashdot could work almost as well without a real password. Just set it up so that it has a username that does not show the last 4 letters, and the only way to change the password is by asking them to send a reset to the email account you signed up in. A 4 letter password plus an email reset would work fine for something as unimportant as tech news site with commenting. I mean really, would it be that horrible if someone stole your slashdot identity? It's not a bank account for god's sake. Or set it up with a camera ID system.
Video tends to be long but short - as usually things on the ground are more interesting than things in the sky.
But the written word lends itself towards a more vertical representation. While singular sentences are read lengthwise, we put in paragraphs to separate out information. The more complex the information, the more vertical space is needed. A typical setup involves a browser with title bar, menu bar, address bar, bookmark, tab bar, web page, status bar, and panel on the bottom. None of these work really well on the sides as each includes words which must be read laterally. So the easiest place to put them is on top of each other. This allows unlimited words in the word section.
I agree this is what taxes are for. And the county had the opportunity to approve a tax. Doing this would either require a vote by the population or a vote by elected officials.
Either way, the people responsible is not the county but the people that voted for 'no new taxes'.
You certainly should NOT force the county to pay and fix the loss. This is exactly what the people of his county voted to do and they did it on purpose.
There is no reason not respectfully cut them off. Warn the user with an email that must be replied to before they get any further service.
For all the information the ISPs track from us, they have a responsibility. Pleasing cost (razor thin margins) is no excuse to engage in restless behavior. In a capitalist society we recognize that if you can't pay for the costs of doing business, you go out of business and your competitors eat your lunch. Preventing crime that involves using your service is a reasonable and legitamate business cost. After all, the botnets tend to be one of the major user of ISP resources - particularly if they are doign a Denial of Service attack. So shutting them down lowers the ISP costs, increasing their thin margins.
If the individuals go to jail then the individuals get privacy rights. As for corporations Dissolved - see Blackwater. They just change their names and continue business as usual.
They want GROUP rights to privacy then they need GROUP punishement.
Specifically, would you consider jailing just your right hand to be sufficient penalty if you commit a murder with your right hand? The penalties you describe are no where near sufficient.
What happens is this:
They set up distributed responsibility. So no single person commits sufficient crime, but their actions in total are a horrendous crime. CEO says do X, without giving proper warning about not breaking the law. Lawyers set up clear rules stating Y is not allowed, but Y-1 is. VP's boss VP says do I don't care about the law, just get X done. VP's underling, (Manager) says "Yeah the rules are no Y, but we absolutely have to get X done. If we do this complex procedure, as long as employees do 30 minute prep work "Z", then we get X without Y. So it is now approved.
Employee complains that they can't get Z done in time, please what should I do. Manager says we must do X or you are fired. Manager passes buck up. Employee does X but not Z.
Employee gets blamed.
No. CEO never never the proper emphasis. CEO did not do his job, but stays out of jail. Employee testifies in court that he complained about the procedure. Manager says he had procedure. No one gets jailed. Bull.
If you want the right to privacy, then you need to be arrestable.
Aka, if they are found guilty of a crime, then the entire corporation must go to jail.
After all, if they can't be held responsible, then they shouldn't get the ability to hide their actions.
Most of the time I don't buy online because the shipping cost exceeds any value saved.
The exceptions are when I buy enough to satisfy the free shipping requirements or if I could not find the merchandise in my home town.
I would expect that the typical online purchaser lives in an area without extensive shopping. Otherwise it just makes more sens to go to the store and physically examine the item. Check it's size, look for defects, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead it is the responsibility of those that wish to charge to make it clear that their product is NOT FREE.
You can not leave your crappy junk all over the street and then get upset when people pick it up.
Similarly, if you are so stupid as to leave your wireless network open without a password, there is NOTHING illegal with other people assuming your wireless network is a free network and using it to connect to the internet. Note, I am not condoning people hacking into your servers, just using your open network to access the regular internet.
Morons should NOT be allowed to take our rights and force charities to bear the responsibilities that business owners have failed to live up to.
I mean really, each one of these machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and are totally ineffective.
If you want to destroy a plane, you do what the US army does and shoot down with a missile. They are cheap, costing thousands of dollars as opposed to hundreds of thousands. And you don't need to do a kamikazee run.
If you want to steel a plane and crash it into a building, then you are out of luck. The single incident that occurred worked because we did not consider it a possibility.
As soon as we knew it was possible, the passengers of United 93 did what they had to do and crashed their own plane.
The idea that it is possible to stop someone from blowing up a plane is almost as ridiculous as the idea that it would be possible for someone else to take another passenger plane hostage. The passengers know better now and we would rise up kill the terrorist with our freakin fingernails before we obeyed him.
How do I know this? Because no terrorist, not a single other incident has succeeded in the past decade of crashing a commercial plane. If the idea had any merit, they would have tried it already. Instead they know how stupid that idea is and stick to trying to blow up planes instead of taking them hostage.
And we can never stop that risk - anymore than we can stop the risk of being hit by a drunk driver. But your chance of being killed by a drunk driver is actually significant.
2. In the right situation, they make a huge stink, doing more damage to the criminal than the criminal did. I.E. Cook's Magainze's reputation may be totally destroyed by the moronic, illegal act of one editor, not the owner. The owner, who is probably a lot smarter than the editor will almost certainly end up paying the $130 donation, not to mention a lot more in legal fees and advertising/marketing to get their paper back.
3. Also note how the message gets lost with a whole bunch of people arguing about recipees being copyrightable. Irrelevant, more than a recipee was copied. Clearly the people that bring up the recipee issue are clue-less (probably did not read the article), and wasting even more effort with pointless, irrelevant foolishness
4. Another major issue is how someone got a job as an editor without knowing anything about how the business works? You pay people to write articles, you can't copy them. Thinking the internet is public domain is pretty bad - and not thinking "hey, why don't I just copy all my articles from this public domain internet" thing makes her really stupid.
5. But it also shows the general rudeness of editors. In general editors have set up a writing system that is incredibally rude to the writers. How would you feel if you were trying to sell a painting that you created and the guy said "I will only look at it if you agree not to show it to anyone else?" And then waited months to say "No Thank you." But somehow this is OK with the written word (mainly because so many people write - it is easier to try than most other art forms.) This editor clearly needs some humility, and writers in general need to get more respect.
Specifically, when counting votes, you don't just do a full count, you also break it down into X votes from Y district, and even by voting machine, which is verified independently by the voter registration rolls. So each machine has a list of the people that voted using it, the total vote count for each candidate, and the ability to check if the vote was counted.
A bunch of false ballots would pump up the total votes done and the numbers would not match.
Each independent voting machine would list the totals for each candidate and you could verify their own votes there.
Note, there is no way totally prevent fraud, but the method I describe here would require fraudulent vote counters at each and every district machine, all of whom keep quiet.
In addition, the voting record itself is public, and the software is public. This would let people prevent the lying.
Besides, it's not that hard to create a paper ballot system that is secret and fair, but uses computers to speed the creation and counting.
Step 1. Have a printer kiosk that lets you select who you vote for electronically. It also shows 3 colors/icons/etc. You select a color/icon when you vote.
Step 2. The kiosk then prints out TWO identical bar coded paper receipts that does not have anything but numbers on it.
Step 3. Take bar coded paper receipt to second machine, called a reader.
Step 4. Feed one (either one) into the reader. That reader displays who you voted for, you can confirm or deny. Assuming you confirm, it keeps the one recepit and you keep your own. If you deny, it spits out the bad receipt, and you are legally required to shred both before you try again.
Step 5. To confirm your vote, you log on to a database, look for your recepit number and enter the color/icon you remembered. If you enter the wrong one, it displays a false vote without reveleaing that you entered the wrong color/icon.
Net result is that you and only you know who you voted for, and you can verify that your vote was counted.
2. Standards of "beauty" are relative and dynamic. Oh, the first buyers might get them because they are fuel effecient, but it would become hip and hot and suddenly everyone would say how PRETTY they are.
3. Dirt might be a problem. I don't know about that.
4. I doubt paint would be a problem, Paint is very high tech.
5. The car would not be bigger, the hood, panels, etc already stick out beyond the frame.
6. But most importantly, any fashion designer can tell you that the definition of what "looks good" is generally CREATED top down, not bottom up. It would become "pretty", just the way that bellbottoms became popular - both the original time and the revival time. Marketing and Designers determine what is pretty, not the general population.
Ever look at a court building? Do you see those long columns? And the Lintels? They were originally abhored by the Greco-roman architects. Called ugly, etc. They had to use them because it was the only way they knew to build tall buildings.
Now people think they look classic.
Similarly, if we started building dimpled cars, the first people to buy them would be the same people that bought hybrids. Soon they would develop an image of being HIP and NEW.
Before you know it, everyone would be talking about how BEAUTIFUL they are - particularly people like you who just assume that beauty standards are static and unchanging.
Now, some enterprising person could build a car body from scratch and truly verify if Adam and Jaime got it right.
That said, in close elections, money could buy it. There are 4 tossup elections (as per the New York Times data) that are close neough for a reasonable amount of cash to buy the election.
Colorado: Buck (r) ahead of Bennet (d) by .3%. Here money could buy the election with less than double
Illionis: (r) ahead of Giannoulias (d) by 1.3%. Could buy the election for 2 times the money
West Virgina: (Manchin (d) ahead of Raese (r) by 1.9%, for a bit less than 4 times the money
All other elections are more than 2.5% difference in voting, which would require about a at least a sixfold increase in cash - and that assumes your opponent can not keep up with your spending. It is simply too expensive to buy any other election.
Bull. Giving never miss/insta-kill/health/power for 1000 games is NOT easier than creating a single better AI that can be used for all games. AIs have been growing in power and complexity and they will continue to do so.
What happens is that when you touch the screen to select "English" as your language, it immediately goes to the next screen where you select your candidate. But the old button that said "English" is very close to where the new button that votes for candidates appears.
So if you are slow to remove your finger from the "English" button, your finger is already on the 'vote for candidate button', resulting in what the slow voter thinks is a default vote.
This is:
1. A bad GUI design. Grade D- in my opinion for putting the touch buttons so close and keeping the touch time too short/sensitive.
2. A bad tester, if they did any. Grade F. I mean really, was this that hard to catch?
3. Reminds me of moronic and illegal paper 'butterfly ballot' used in Florida not that long ago. Can't we get competent people to design these things?
Wow. I did not know that we had tetra and pentachromats. Thank you.
1. Emergency solutions: Setting bones, removing bullets, removing cancers
2. Proactive Prevention.
When it comes to Emergncy stuff, western medicine far outpaces homeopathy. You got a bullet in you? A surgeon can remove it.
This article is not about the emergency solutions, but about the proactive prevention. Those kind of things we are not demonstratable better at than homeopathy. That includes things like:Implanting stents (no none increase in survivability), lipitor (no proven connection between taking it and reduced chance of heart attack - it reduces chlorestal and studies have shown that people with lower chlorestal have less heart attacks but it is not known at ALL if chlorestal is the cause or just a symptom of the heart attacks), etc. Note, we don't know that this stuff doesn't work, we just haven't really tested it.
Modern medicine gets away to use the proactive prevention because of the good rep it got froim the Emergency stuff.
P.S. In the interest of total honesty, I admit that I am not a doctor, and despite my skepticism, I do take chlorestal lowering medicine.
But birds have cones that can see far greater. Some birds can see as low as 375 nm. This lets them see ultraviolet.
How hard would it be to find the gene that lets birds make this kind of cone cell and add it to a human? Breed for UV colorblind birds, compare their DNA with birds that can see UV, sample the DNA and try it out on a monkey first.
P.S. the human lens tends to block light at frequencies of around 380, so we might only be able to see down to 385 nm, but that is still a boost of 35 nm, greater than the difference between green and red.
We can already make several substances that are stronger than spider silk, but it is very expensive.
You are confusing a symbolic representation for a number because the symbol contains numbers in it.
It is physically impossible to represent certain numbers using base 10. Pi for example. Is is less obvious, but still a fact that 1/3 and 1/9 are in fact impossible to accurately represent using base 10. The .1111... .33333... and .9999... are all of rather limited accuracy symbols, not numbers, just as if I were to say pi = 3.14159+ The 3.14159+ is a symbol representing Pi, not a number, similarly .9999999... is NOT a number, but is instead a symbolic representation of a number.
The fact that long division or electronic calculators come up with those results is an indication of human accounting for the limitations of our mathematical symptoms. Here, try it in a base 8 format.
In base 8, .11111111 = 1/8 + 1/80 + 1/800 ....
That number, multiplied by 7 becomes .77777777777... or 7/8 + 7/80 + 7/800 ... You can use the same bad math you used earlier to prove that 1 = .7777777... base 8 that you used to claim that 1 = .99999 in base 10
But when you translate that back to base 10, you get .111111... base 8 = .140138888.... (base 10). Then base 8 .777777... = base 10 .9809722222222...
As you can quite clearly see that .980972222... is NOT equal to 1
Here, think of it like rabbits. You have 10 crates of rabbits. If the rabbit crates all have 9 male rabbits, you can mulitple 10*9 to get the 90 total rabbits. But if each crate in fact has a 4 male and 5 female rabbits, so that each crate is uncountable (just as the number of 1's in .1111111... can not be counted), then only a moron multiplies 10x9 and expects to get an accurate count of 90 rabbits. Your number is going to be off because male + female rabbits = uncountable, just as .1111111... is uncountable. It is NOT a number.
will be some of the first 'banned words', I bet. Only in Chinese, not English.
The problems with variable password rules makes it harder to create password systems. More importantly, usually we don't really need one. Really, is there any need for a site like moviefone to have a password? I mean really, it's a freaking movie website list. Let them track you with a cookie, not a login and a password. I don't agree to give my credit card number to my grocery store permanently just to get "one click" payout, what possibly reason would I do it for a freakin movie ticket. Honestly, even slashdot could work almost as well without a real password. Just set it up so that it has a username that does not show the last 4 letters, and the only way to change the password is by asking them to send a reset to the email account you signed up in. A 4 letter password plus an email reset would work fine for something as unimportant as tech news site with commenting. I mean really, would it be that horrible if someone stole your slashdot identity? It's not a bank account for god's sake. Or set it up with a camera ID system.
..description. But it sounds like it is in their business plan.
But the written word lends itself towards a more vertical representation. While singular sentences are read lengthwise, we put in paragraphs to separate out information. The more complex the information, the more vertical space is needed. A typical setup involves a browser with title bar, menu bar, address bar, bookmark, tab bar, web page, status bar, and panel on the bottom. None of these work really well on the sides as each includes words which must be read laterally. So the easiest place to put them is on top of each other. This allows unlimited words in the word section.
I agree this is what taxes are for. And the county had the opportunity to approve a tax. Doing this would either require a vote by the population or a vote by elected officials. Either way, the people responsible is not the county but the people that voted for 'no new taxes'. You certainly should NOT force the county to pay and fix the loss. This is exactly what the people of his county voted to do and they did it on purpose.
For all the information the ISPs track from us, they have a responsibility. Pleasing cost (razor thin margins) is no excuse to engage in restless behavior. In a capitalist society we recognize that if you can't pay for the costs of doing business, you go out of business and your competitors eat your lunch. Preventing crime that involves using your service is a reasonable and legitamate business cost. After all, the botnets tend to be one of the major user of ISP resources - particularly if they are doign a Denial of Service attack. So shutting them down lowers the ISP costs, increasing their thin margins.
What happens is this:
They set up distributed responsibility. So no single person commits sufficient crime, but their actions in total are a horrendous crime. CEO says do X, without giving proper warning about not breaking the law. Lawyers set up clear rules stating Y is not allowed, but Y-1 is. VP's boss VP says do I don't care about the law, just get X done. VP's underling, (Manager) says "Yeah the rules are no Y, but we absolutely have to get X done. If we do this complex procedure, as long as employees do 30 minute prep work "Z", then we get X without Y. So it is now approved. Employee complains that they can't get Z done in time, please what should I do. Manager says we must do X or you are fired. Manager passes buck up. Employee does X but not Z. Employee gets blamed. No. CEO never never the proper emphasis. CEO did not do his job, but stays out of jail. Employee testifies in court that he complained about the procedure. Manager says he had procedure. No one gets jailed. Bull.
If you want the right to privacy, then you need to be arrestable. Aka, if they are found guilty of a crime, then the entire corporation must go to jail. After all, if they can't be held responsible, then they shouldn't get the ability to hide their actions.
Most of the time I don't buy online because the shipping cost exceeds any value saved. The exceptions are when I buy enough to satisfy the free shipping requirements or if I could not find the merchandise in my home town. I would expect that the typical online purchaser lives in an area without extensive shopping. Otherwise it just makes more sens to go to the store and physically examine the item. Check it's size, look for defects, etc.