The human brain doesn't comprehend numbers that large consciously. Even 1/10 of a billion dollars will last 1,000 years spending $100,000/year. This is not even accounting for any interest on the principal, and considerably higher than median household income in the US. If they were able to recover even a fraction of the amount, they are set for life even if they spend exorbitantly.
Don't worry too much. The failure results will be obfuscated by a paywall and/or HIPAA protection so you don't have to trouble yourself with them. The pharma company gets paid for your chemo round whether it works or not.
The credit bureau's function is to make sure that an individual has a good credit rating so a bank or business can predict who would be a good risk to give credit. Did these companies prevent the "liar loans" which led to the financial collapse of 2008? It doesn't seem to me as though they are serving the public good to a capacity which offsets the risk in leaking private information.
The reality of the situation is that the IRS has been chronically underfunded because it suits the owners of the US government to not have anyone competent reviewing their books too closely. The idea that a private company be outsourced such sensitive data is ludicrous, but the IRS will never have the funding to do it in-house properly.
Right now, the taxpayer is subsidizing these low paying jobs with welfare. If raising the minimum wage encourages companies to automate, society will be better off because it makes the inefficient jobs obsolete.
It's actually a choice for the consumer to keep multiple subscriptions. I plan on only keeping a subscription active if I am currently watching a show.
Phones are pretty intimate devices, so I understand why the owners of these apps would want to use them as hooks to extract as much out of their users as possible because there is money in information. I think I'm pretty fair when it comes to granting permissions, but Facebook and LinkedIn are examples of apps that go way too far. I get that a social network would want to access my address book and calendar, but I can't think of a good reason to give them that privilege. I use the mobile website for Facebook and Twitter, and generally only use LinkedIn on my desktop browser.
It's not illegal, but it's also not in the public interests. If the road owners have a history of reneging on agreements to the public, and knowingly allow the free roads to degrade and fill with potholes to force everyone to the pay roads it's bad news for everyone. They can bribe the local politicians to keep the scheme legal, but it is putting most people at a disadvantage to profit a few rich investors.
I received a trial subscription to SiriusXM when I bought a new car 2 years back. It's anecdotal, but I would say that free streaming audio sounds better than the quality of the subscription radio, which sounded tinny and low bitrate. With the amount they charge for a "legitimate" listening experience, I don't begrudge those that record their music from other quality sources.
For all the government subsidies given to build and maintain the stadiums for these sports, they should be broadcast OTA for no additional cost, and the broadcast simulcast streamed online.
"When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something," Mark Tomforde, a math professor at the University of Houston said....
Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Every single work supervisor I've ever had has introduced themselves by their first name and preferred to be addressed that way.
There are entire industries that are completely dependent on a pool of workers that are able to be paid a low wage, such as seasonal farming, retail, and restaurant staff. If UBI were implemented, it would an easy choice for the median-to-low wage earners in the industry to forgo work and take the basic income, when many were relying on assistance anyway.
As for the owners of the industries, either they would forced to close shop or raise wages to the point where a full-time worker would receive a living wage.
Most humans, especially Americans, already hate automated service of any kind. Being served by an actual human is a luxury that signifies status whereas being transferred to the automated voice answering system, no matter how sophisticated, only serves to reinforce the relative insignificance of the person receiving the "service".
Call me a counter-example, but I generally order take-out once a week through a website rather than calling in the order. When I go see a movie, it is preferable to order the ticket online or use the automated kiosk than waiting in line. I would say a good portion of my shopping is done online as well.
Drug trials are limited in scope because there are restrictions on the patents of the studied compounds, which greatly limits the capacity to replicate the trial. Multiple studies have been done on climate, which is more open access.
Of course, there are moral concerns here, as you are often downloading the games illegally -- unless you own the physical copy, that is.
These games have often been out of print for decades, and legally exist in the wild only on outdated hardware. Is it not equally immoral to wait for the copyright to expire on these games to copy them, when the technology to do so may not exist in the future? Why is protecting a copyright on something that has been out of print, presumably determined by the publisher to be unprofitable somehow "moral".
Where I live, the only broadband offerings are 1.5Mbps DSL from Verizon, or Comcast Xfinity. Although Verizon had made a deal with the state government to provide broadband service to all residences, they've since reneged on the deal since by arguing their LTE coverage should count. It's been pretty clear that these two companies have made some deal to not compete with each other, and cooperate to maintain high prices and limited service.
Governments should favor local companies to protect their economy. It looks like Austin has developed their own ride sharing companies in absence of Uber and Lyft. Meanwhile, Uber is short-changing their fees to US drivers so that they can subsidize rides in other regions where they are not dominant yet. Basically, it's taking money out of the US economy and dumping it elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Joke's on you! All of these are meat problems our new robot overlords don't give a damn about.
The human brain doesn't comprehend numbers that large consciously. Even 1/10 of a billion dollars will last 1,000 years spending $100,000/year. This is not even accounting for any interest on the principal, and considerably higher than median household income in the US. If they were able to recover even a fraction of the amount, they are set for life even if they spend exorbitantly.
Obama put the ability to sue the banks in place, rather than forced arbitration. It is the GOP rolling back consumer protection.
Don't worry too much. The failure results will be obfuscated by a paywall and/or HIPAA protection so you don't have to trouble yourself with them. The pharma company gets paid for your chemo round whether it works or not.
The credit bureau's function is to make sure that an individual has a good credit rating so a bank or business can predict who would be a good risk to give credit. Did these companies prevent the "liar loans" which led to the financial collapse of 2008? It doesn't seem to me as though they are serving the public good to a capacity which offsets the risk in leaking private information.
The reality of the situation is that the IRS has been chronically underfunded because it suits the owners of the US government to not have anyone competent reviewing their books too closely. The idea that a private company be outsourced such sensitive data is ludicrous, but the IRS will never have the funding to do it in-house properly.
People with the money get to decide what's evil and good.
iMessage will never exceed penetration beyond iPhone itself. More phones are Android, and can't install iMessage.
The app can report your GPS location, phone number, and other informatics back to the app developer and their advertising partners.
Right now, the taxpayer is subsidizing these low paying jobs with welfare. If raising the minimum wage encourages companies to automate, society will be better off because it makes the inefficient jobs obsolete.
I'm pretty sure the app developers are just renting out storage space on the user's phone.
It's actually a choice for the consumer to keep multiple subscriptions. I plan on only keeping a subscription active if I am currently watching a show.
Phones are pretty intimate devices, so I understand why the owners of these apps would want to use them as hooks to extract as much out of their users as possible because there is money in information. I think I'm pretty fair when it comes to granting permissions, but Facebook and LinkedIn are examples of apps that go way too far. I get that a social network would want to access my address book and calendar, but I can't think of a good reason to give them that privilege. I use the mobile website for Facebook and Twitter, and generally only use LinkedIn on my desktop browser.
It's not illegal, but it's also not in the public interests. If the road owners have a history of reneging on agreements to the public, and knowingly allow the free roads to degrade and fill with potholes to force everyone to the pay roads it's bad news for everyone. They can bribe the local politicians to keep the scheme legal, but it is putting most people at a disadvantage to profit a few rich investors.
Maybe it's time to upgrade to iWife 2.
I received a trial subscription to SiriusXM when I bought a new car 2 years back. It's anecdotal, but I would say that free streaming audio sounds better than the quality of the subscription radio, which sounded tinny and low bitrate. With the amount they charge for a "legitimate" listening experience, I don't begrudge those that record their music from other quality sources.
There was a group of astronaut enthusiasts that probably caused that one.
For all the government subsidies given to build and maintain the stadiums for these sports, they should be broadcast OTA for no additional cost, and the broadcast simulcast streamed online.
"When students started calling me by my first name, I felt that was too far, and I've got to say something," Mark Tomforde, a math professor at the University of Houston said....
Explaining the rules of professional interaction is not an act of condescension; it's the first step in treating students like adults.
Every single work supervisor I've ever had has introduced themselves by their first name and preferred to be addressed that way.
There are entire industries that are completely dependent on a pool of workers that are able to be paid a low wage, such as seasonal farming, retail, and restaurant staff. If UBI were implemented, it would an easy choice for the median-to-low wage earners in the industry to forgo work and take the basic income, when many were relying on assistance anyway. As for the owners of the industries, either they would forced to close shop or raise wages to the point where a full-time worker would receive a living wage.
Most humans, especially Americans, already hate automated service of any kind. Being served by an actual human is a luxury that signifies status whereas being transferred to the automated voice answering system, no matter how sophisticated, only serves to reinforce the relative insignificance of the person receiving the "service".
Call me a counter-example, but I generally order take-out once a week through a website rather than calling in the order. When I go see a movie, it is preferable to order the ticket online or use the automated kiosk than waiting in line. I would say a good portion of my shopping is done online as well.
Drug trials are limited in scope because there are restrictions on the patents of the studied compounds, which greatly limits the capacity to replicate the trial. Multiple studies have been done on climate, which is more open access.
Of course, there are moral concerns here, as you are often downloading the games illegally -- unless you own the physical copy, that is.
These games have often been out of print for decades, and legally exist in the wild only on outdated hardware. Is it not equally immoral to wait for the copyright to expire on these games to copy them, when the technology to do so may not exist in the future? Why is protecting a copyright on something that has been out of print, presumably determined by the publisher to be unprofitable somehow "moral".
Where I live, the only broadband offerings are 1.5Mbps DSL from Verizon, or Comcast Xfinity. Although Verizon had made a deal with the state government to provide broadband service to all residences, they've since reneged on the deal since by arguing their LTE coverage should count. It's been pretty clear that these two companies have made some deal to not compete with each other, and cooperate to maintain high prices and limited service.
Governments should favor local companies to protect their economy. It looks like Austin has developed their own ride sharing companies in absence of Uber and Lyft. Meanwhile, Uber is short-changing their fees to US drivers so that they can subsidize rides in other regions where they are not dominant yet. Basically, it's taking money out of the US economy and dumping it elsewhere.