Why should something that generates revenue over time not be paid out the same way to the creator? A book or a movie (that is more than single-use-pulp) may be selling books and DVDs and ads in TV reruns for decades.
if you're asking for the creators to be payed upfront when the work is finsihed, you'd need to find someone who is going to finance that - paying with money that has not been earned yet.
There are certainly advantages to such a model, but it would definitly create a middleman with too much power. (Or restore the power of publishers that they are currently losing due to easier self-publishing and self-marketing online)
But I agree that the whole system is broken at several points
you can't tell the difference between obvious propaganda and a news organization which tries hard to be impartial?
Of course I can do that. That's easy. The problem starts where you have to tell the difference between non-obvious propaganda and sloppy journalism due to budget reasons.
Yes, your course of action (reading and comparing multiple sources) would help, but boils down to do your own research and become your own expert, just to recognize bad newspaper articles.
And if that wouldn't be hard enough, you would have to be self-reflecting enough to recognize your own bias. Which is harder than you think, because to yourself, bias appears as knowledge. Usually of the "Everyone knows that..." or "Someone who I accept as expert once told me that..." or "It's common knowledge that.." varieties.
And it takes a really scientific mindest to accept that what you know may be completly wrong. (Our brain is wired to work with inaccurate information which is cool on its own, but the opposite of scientific)
Well, still could work. But that's really rare. I could only quote two examples where the engeneer either is the hero (McGyver) or saves the day (Star trek. Usually by reversing some polarity...)
But yeah, in all other shows the clever guy is usually the uncool nerd. (Riptide, anyone?)
Google 2factor-auth also works sms-less if you don't trust that. Either by a seperate authenticator app that calculates the secondary code the same way as an external key-genrator would, or you can use an actual external generator.
But what if they would find out that there is MORE stained money found in the debris than there was inside?
In what way would that benefit a thief to leave money, stained or not, at a crime scene?
I left open the option "just for lulz". Yes, not everyone personally benefits from causing confusion.
Sounds to me like either a source for lulz or a way to wash (somehow literally) dirty money. (with a little inside help of course)
Nevermind. I didn't realize you were the actors in Office Space that had to look up the dictionary definition of money laundering.
Money laundering only works if you get the "clean" money back after it's been "laundered". If you have a guy on the inside that would get the money after it's been replaced, whether it's extra or not, it's not money laundering. It's just plain theft. And you wouldn't even need to go through hassle of laundering it, they would just steal it to begin with.
I even wrote "literally" laundring it - like removing stains.
And there is a huge difference if your inside man is replacing extra money: it won't be missed, lowering the risk of detection.
Sorry I'm not comming up with laid out plans for the perfect crime as a response to a/.-post, but I guess getting finding a way to have someone trusted (like another bank) replacing your stained bills would be the way to go if you were in that line of business.
Many times, it destroys the money completely in the process, but as it seems, usually enough remains that the practice continues.
Well, it's not their money they're destroying...
The most effective measure taken to discourage the practice was to pack bags of dyes inside the ATM cassetes, so that the money is stained and rendered unusable. If you try to deposit stained money, it'll be confiscated on the spot.
Hmm... they can take the stained money, but neither deposit or spend it.....
They're probably going to leave behind stained money, as it is of no use to them. The bank, on the other hand, of course will re-deposit their own stained money....
But what if they would find out that there is MORE stained money found in the debris than there was inside?
Sounds to me like either a source for lulz or a way to wash (somehow literally) dirty money. (with a little inside help of course)
Several manufacturers now make various anti-gas-attack modules: Some absorb shock waves, some detect gas and render it harmless,
Well, somehow I don't think those manufacturers haven't tried your idea yet. It's not about preventing this kind of attack would be particularly difficult - it just hasn't been neccessary so far.
Why do you need to route calls through a seperate business just to do some basic black/whitelisting? That's a basic feature of anything that can forward or route calls anyway.
Don't forget safe tailgating by reducing the distance between cars as the first car can signal to the trailing car that it's going to break before even the actual brakes are moving. No need to factor in human reaction time anymore.
...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.
In which case the non-US citizens should be glad that the US authorities even went that extra mile and got a judge to sign a warrant and not NSL to get the data of foreign agents without judical oversight.
Foreign dependencies because multinational companies wnat to make business in those countries, too. Most countries demand that a part of your company is in that country if you want to sell something there. (Or at least a local distributor who is responsible for what is imported and sold)
It's tax reasons why those companies exist in Ireland, and not in France or Germany.
If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....
Under US laws Google has to pay *A SHITLOAD OF TAXES* and what Google did?
Google shifted its money, via accounting, around the world, to Ireland, to Luxembourg, to many other tax havens, so that it doesn't need to pay those taxes
No. Obviously Google hasn't to pay a "shitload of taxes" as US (and other countries) laws allowed them to legally shift their money around the world.
But it's still no defense for armed robbery. "I asked him for his money or his life. He had the free choice and gave me the money voluntarily"....
So, how much harm is done by a "or else find yourself a new job" depends on the given individual. To some it's only a "...or else switch to another employer" but for some it's "...or else become homeless and die on the street like a dog"
Slashdot Mirror
Why should something that generates revenue over time not be paid out the same way to the creator? A book or a movie (that is more than single-use-pulp) may be selling books and DVDs and ads in TV reruns for decades.
if you're asking for the creators to be payed upfront when the work is finsihed, you'd need to find someone who is going to finance that - paying with money that has not been earned yet.
There are certainly advantages to such a model, but it would definitly create a middleman with too much power. (Or restore the power of publishers that they are currently losing due to easier self-publishing and self-marketing online)
But I agree that the whole system is broken at several points
Please back that information up at least with some country information. Else it's just plain wrong.
you can't tell the difference between obvious propaganda and a news organization which tries hard to be impartial?
Of course I can do that. That's easy. The problem starts where you have to tell the difference between non-obvious propaganda and sloppy journalism due to budget reasons.
Yes, your course of action (reading and comparing multiple sources) would help, but boils down to do your own research and become your own expert, just to recognize bad newspaper articles.
And if that wouldn't be hard enough, you would have to be self-reflecting enough to recognize your own bias. Which is harder than you think, because to yourself, bias appears as knowledge. Usually of the "Everyone knows that..." or "Someone who I accept as expert once told me that..." or "It's common knowledge that.." varieties.
And it takes a really scientific mindest to accept that what you know may be completly wrong. (Our brain is wired to work with inaccurate information which is cool on its own, but the opposite of scientific)
we're human beings. we're all biased. if you want your media to be free of bias, you will never read anything ever again
That would be indeed more of a solution than a problem.
But in reality, people who want their media to be free of bias rather tend to consider media, that shares their own bias as bias free.
So ApplePay needs new card readers? the retailers have to upgrade and replace working old readers to use it?
Well, I guess CVC will be glad to hear those news....
Why not leave anything that could start a major diplomatic incident (at best) to the hands of amateurs!
what could possibly go wrong...
Well, still could work. But that's really rare. I could only quote two examples where the engeneer either is the hero (McGyver) or saves the day (Star trek. Usually by reversing some polarity...)
But yeah, in all other shows the clever guy is usually the uncool nerd. (Riptide, anyone?)
Google 2factor-auth also works sms-less if you don't trust that. Either by a seperate authenticator app that calculates the secondary code the same way as an external key-genrator would, or you can use an actual external generator.
Or live with amateur advice from people who can't be lawyers by definition.
But what if they would find out that there is MORE stained money found in the debris than there was inside?
In what way would that benefit a thief to leave money, stained or not, at a crime scene?
I left open the option "just for lulz". Yes, not everyone personally benefits from causing confusion.
Nevermind. I didn't realize you were the actors in Office Space that had to look up the dictionary definition of money laundering.
Money laundering only works if you get the "clean" money back after it's been "laundered". If you have a guy on the inside that would get the money after it's been replaced, whether it's extra or not, it's not money laundering. It's just plain theft. And you wouldn't even need to go through hassle of laundering it, they would just steal it to begin with.
I even wrote "literally" laundring it - like removing stains.
And there is a huge difference if your inside man is replacing extra money: it won't be missed, lowering the risk of detection.
Sorry I'm not comming up with laid out plans for the perfect crime as a response to a /.-post, but I guess getting finding a way to have someone trusted (like another bank) replacing your stained bills would be the way to go if you were in that line of business.
Many times, it destroys the money completely in the process, but as it seems, usually enough remains that the practice continues.
Well, it's not their money they're destroying...
The most effective measure taken to discourage the practice was to pack bags of dyes inside the ATM cassetes, so that the money is stained and rendered unusable. If you try to deposit stained money, it'll be confiscated on the spot.
Hmm... they can take the stained money, but neither deposit or spend it.....
They're probably going to leave behind stained money, as it is of no use to them. The bank, on the other hand, of course will re-deposit their own stained money....
But what if they would find out that there is MORE stained money found in the debris than there was inside?
Sounds to me like either a source for lulz or a way to wash (somehow literally) dirty money. (with a little inside help of course)
Several manufacturers now make various anti-gas-attack modules: Some absorb shock waves, some detect gas and render it harmless,
Well, somehow I don't think those manufacturers haven't tried your idea yet. It's not about preventing this kind of attack would be particularly difficult - it just hasn't been neccessary so far.
Somehow this reminds of photocopiers refusing to copy things which resemble some random selection of paper money bills.
It's more like a random selection of yellow circles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...
Why do you need to route calls through a seperate business just to do some basic black/whitelisting? That's a basic feature of anything that can forward or route calls anyway.
How about ASKING the user if an unknown bootloader is detected during install? "Hey, did you install this here on purpose?"
You mean like torture and murder
Hmm, I might pick Cuba instead.
Don't forget safe tailgating by reducing the distance between cars as the first car can signal to the trailing car that it's going to break before even the actual brakes are moving. No need to factor in human reaction time anymore.
Humbug. What could possibly go wrong?
...which adds to the point that an email account, that doesn't contain emails about the subject at hand should also be part of a criminal investigation.
In which case the non-US citizens should be glad that the US authorities even went that extra mile and got a judge to sign a warrant and not NSL to get the data of foreign agents without judical oversight.
Foreign dependencies because multinational companies wnat to make business in those countries, too. Most countries demand that a part of your company is in that country if you want to sell something there. (Or at least a local distributor who is responsible for what is imported and sold)
It's tax reasons why those companies exist in Ireland, and not in France or Germany.
If *I* worked for wikilieaks, I sure would have an additional freemail account somewhere that I'd use for facebook, slashdot, mailing cat pictures to friends....
Fuck man, stop giving us this shitty excuse!
Under US laws Google has to pay *A SHITLOAD OF TAXES* and what Google did?
Google shifted its money, via accounting, around the world, to Ireland, to Luxembourg, to many other tax havens, so that it doesn't need to pay those taxes
No. Obviously Google hasn't to pay a "shitload of taxes" as US (and other countries) laws allowed them to legally shift their money around the world.
You're mixing that up with "should have to pay"
Absurd and extreme: yes. Irrelvant: no
Just wanted to show where this line of thought ends when you think it through.
I think we agree that there is a middle ground. But touting that choices are always actual choices, is overly simplistic.
Right.
But it's still no defense for armed robbery. "I asked him for his money or his life. He had the free choice and gave me the money voluntarily"....
So, how much harm is done by a "or else find yourself a new job" depends on the given individual. To some it's only a "...or else switch to another employer" but for some it's "...or else become homeless and die on the street like a dog"