If they went bankrupt because of a lawsuit related to an injury then there is clearly more financial backing there as the plaintiff was able to go after their assets. Someone like Uber would have walked away from the case and thrown the driver under the bus (which they've already done at least once) and the person that got hurt would have never gotten a dime.
Did you not read the article? The Yellow Taxi company operates as a co-operative and argued that the driver was an independent contractor, just like Uber does. Apparently this position did not fly with the court, and it seems reasonable that if Uber made the same argument, the court would also make Uber liable.
Actually, New York taxicabs are the classic example of how to create a liability shield. Basically they all operate as ICs and each one has the minimum required state liability, so the state lets them get away with having no liability as a whole for things that cost more than that small amount (maybe $50K, which in New York is like I tripped and stubbed someone's toe).
Every case is going to be decided a bit differently based on location, corporate structure, and the quality of the lawyers, etc..., unless Uber successfully lobbies the states for laws limiting liability. If Uber starts losing cases they will probably be able to do that until they start having self-driving ubers. Then it's going to get dicey for a while.
Wrong. The FCC explicitly stated the law (47 USC 227) prohibits political robocalls to cell phones without prior express consent. The FCC even issued citations to Democratic Dialing, LLC for it.
What is permitted is non-telemarketing (including political) robocalls to LANDLINES.
So *one* anti-phone-spam law they haven't carved out an exception on. They only wrote the law to let them and their fundraisers harass us on LANDLINES. How incredibly considerate of them.
And anyone who says political calls aren't telemarketing is selling something.
But if the Republicans rulers of a corporation hire thousands of co-conspirators to call the people in order to prevent us from communicating by calling us and tieing up our communication devices thus not allowing us to communicate, then they have taken our voice. They are taking our voice.
Actually, Congress has written all of these laws to make an exception for... Congress. Political fundraisers can call you all they want.
The difference is that telemarketing steals your time in a way you can't reallocate. It's a much more significant intrusion than junk mail, and much more inconsiderate. And it is used much more frequently by very disreputable companies who hide caller IDs, refuse to give you real addresses, pretend to have preexisting relationships with you, etc...
Basically the sheer quantity of fraud combined with the much greater intrusion make it an appropriate area for regulation. The phone companies should be preventing it but don't. So long as the phone companies won't, governments should.
Also, why not just remove all the images so that the links show errors. You'd achieve the same end results but you wouldn't be hosting or DISTRIBUTING kiddie porn. Claim it was a drive failure or whatever.
Because then people visiting the site could not be charged with possession of child pornography.
Remember a few years ago when all of the internet cables into Iran lost service "accidentally" at the same time?
I am wondering if a national intelligence service has decided to tap (or break) multiple cables at the same time for some reason--perhaps to prevent the deployment of more detection tech or development of more of a ready-response before they tap the next cable? Or perhaps as a feather in someone's cap.
Of course, it could just be coincidence. But that becomes less likely the more times we see multiple cables hit at the same time.
Shakedowns happen every day, but you're wrong about that many demand letters being extortion--most demand letters are trying to resolve legitimate disputes by pointing out "if you keep doing illegal thing X, it will cost us, but mostly you, a LOT of money, and I think you'll lose."
Yes--both parties are blatantly opposed to civil liberties and in favor of online tracking. Just look at the anti-encryption stuff they've been spewing at the last few debates.
But even beyond that, the basic analogy being used here is flawed. He's describing the 1980s and earlier. Today license plates are no longer a thing that just gets checked by a cop if there's a problem--they are automatically scanned, not just by red light cameras, but by toll booths and mass license plate scanners. The data gets logged in case it is later useful for law enforcement.
Why would they reveal anti-drone technology like that? If you've got a counter weapon, you shouldn't use it until you really have to. Otherwise your "enemy" will create a counter to your counter, and so forth.
It depends on the tech. If the Russians or Chinese developed it they would want someone else to test it against us in proxy wars. Like the Russians testing their GPS-jamming gear on us, which they've done.
Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.
Sure, they'd be happy to listen because maybe it gives them information about how to better design an ad that won't make you install adblock.
But they're not stupid enough to invite adblock to a conference on ads. Why would you give them more information with which to anticipate new ad strategies or technologies and take money away from you? People make decisions from pathos; but companies make decisions from their wallet.
Don't reinvent the wheel. Look for teacher forums where you'll find CS teachers who have found certain exercises are really great teaching exercises. Call other CS teachers at peer schools or schools that are a little better than yours. (You can also go to really great schools, but depending on where you're teaching may have to simplify a bit). Email teacher lists.
The examples most slashdotters think of may be good, but haven't been field-tested in the same way.
Killing the enemy is killing, not murder. They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price.
Your lines about "people who have gone insane with power" and "accountable to no one" are bullshit.
You don't like it? Vote for someone else. I'll let you in on a secret - pretty much anyone likely to win will do the same thing. The US isn't going to let them kill American citizens and allies without paying a price.
Yes and no. Killing an enemy in a time of war is by definition not murder, but is killing with legal justification. (I.e. a designated enemy in a time of war, plus usually in self-defense or defense of others if the war is legal, since almost every legal war today is couched in self-defense).
That does not necessarily mean "They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price." Because (1) the guy you're killing is almost never the one who made that decision, and (2) sometimes you kill the wrong guy. Someone can be an enemy and be just as honorable as an American soldier, just like an American soldier can be just as dishonorable as someone acting on behalf of a bad guy.
Dehumanizing the enemy is as old as war.
I'm not defending ISIS--the shit they've pulled, every decision-maker deserves more than whatever happens to him. But some guy holding an AK who's standing near one of the decision-makers may just not want to get his family shot.
This should have debuted at the friggin' Catalina Wine Mixer!
It's not a bad idea for the NY metro area if you have the landing pads--massive amounts of money and plenty of people willing to trade money for time. You could probably also do a good business in LA--there's some money and helicopters let you avoid the traffic.
If you have something meaningful to say, please log in. To do otherwise is to provide cover to trolls.
People have employers. Some employers require you to report online identities. (E.g. security clearances, major law firms, etc...) Others do not allow you to speak publicly on areas withing your purview without clearing it through PR.
I'd rather have the contributions of those people as ACs than not have them at all.
Excuse me but it seems to me, that you are saying: "if the integration works - because the immigrants have the same hierarchy of values - then it may work". Duh.
However what we see in reality is, that the hierarchy of values is different. So if you say it "it does work", then I say "citation needed". I'm willing to believe that it is possible to show working integration of an particular individual/family. But on a large scale, the things are different.
Large Scale like The United States? Cause it kind of works here.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you not read the article? The Yellow Taxi company operates as a co-operative and argued that the driver was an independent contractor, just like Uber does. Apparently this position did not fly with the court, and it seems reasonable that if Uber made the same argument, the court would also make Uber liable.
Actually, New York taxicabs are the classic example of how to create a liability shield. Basically they all operate as ICs and each one has the minimum required state liability, so the state lets them get away with having no liability as a whole for things that cost more than that small amount (maybe $50K, which in New York is like I tripped and stubbed someone's toe).
Every case is going to be decided a bit differently based on location, corporate structure, and the quality of the lawyers, etc..., unless Uber successfully lobbies the states for laws limiting liability. If Uber starts losing cases they will probably be able to do that until they start having self-driving ubers. Then it's going to get dicey for a while.
Wrong. The FCC explicitly stated the law (47 USC 227) prohibits political robocalls to cell phones without prior express consent. The FCC even issued citations to Democratic Dialing, LLC for it.
What is permitted is non-telemarketing (including political) robocalls to LANDLINES.
So *one* anti-phone-spam law they haven't carved out an exception on. They only wrote the law to let them and their fundraisers harass us on LANDLINES. How incredibly considerate of them.
And anyone who says political calls aren't telemarketing is selling something.
R Studio isn't the only online IDE useful for web development. You're forgetting Emacs over x-forwarding.
"When I said I was a fan of transparency, I did not mean transparency of clothing!"
But if the Republicans rulers of a corporation hire thousands of co-conspirators to call the people in order to prevent us from communicating by calling us and tieing up our communication devices thus not allowing us to communicate, then they have taken our voice. They are taking our voice.
Actually, Congress has written all of these laws to make an exception for... Congress. Political fundraisers can call you all they want.
The difference is that telemarketing steals your time in a way you can't reallocate. It's a much more significant intrusion than junk mail, and much more inconsiderate. And it is used much more frequently by very disreputable companies who hide caller IDs, refuse to give you real addresses, pretend to have preexisting relationships with you, etc...
Basically the sheer quantity of fraud combined with the much greater intrusion make it an appropriate area for regulation. The phone companies should be preventing it but don't. So long as the phone companies won't, governments should.
Microsoft doesn't give a damn about backwards compatibility.
No doubt that's why we can still use the same API calls sixteen years later...
Apparently you don't. If you want low latency, you host close to the connected users.
It turns out there's a massive amount of stuff that ultra-low latency isn't that important for.
Also, why not just remove all the images so that the links show errors. You'd achieve the same end results but you wouldn't be hosting or DISTRIBUTING kiddie porn. Claim it was a drive failure or whatever.
Because then people visiting the site could not be charged with possession of child pornography.
Remember a few years ago when all of the internet cables into Iran lost service "accidentally" at the same time?
I am wondering if a national intelligence service has decided to tap (or break) multiple cables at the same time for some reason--perhaps to prevent the deployment of more detection tech or development of more of a ready-response before they tap the next cable? Or perhaps as a feather in someone's cap.
Of course, it could just be coincidence. But that becomes less likely the more times we see multiple cables hit at the same time.
Nice, editors.
which may be causing abnormally small heads in newborns,
a rare condition in which babies are born with abnormally small heads.
This message messaged to you by the redundant department of redundancy department.
Shakedowns happen every day, but you're wrong about that many demand letters being extortion--most demand letters are trying to resolve legitimate disputes by pointing out "if you keep doing illegal thing X, it will cost us, but mostly you, a LOT of money, and I think you'll lose."
. . . there is no such thing as a "software engineer".
There are half a million of these supposedly fictional beings. It may be time to get off the soap box.
http://www.bls.gov/oes/2008/ma...
Yes--both parties are blatantly opposed to civil liberties and in favor of online tracking. Just look at the anti-encryption stuff they've been spewing at the last few debates.
But even beyond that, the basic analogy being used here is flawed. He's describing the 1980s and earlier. Today license plates are no longer a thing that just gets checked by a cop if there's a problem--they are automatically scanned, not just by red light cameras, but by toll booths and mass license plate scanners. The data gets logged in case it is later useful for law enforcement.
Why would they reveal anti-drone technology like that? If you've got a counter weapon, you shouldn't use it until you really have to. Otherwise your "enemy" will create a counter to your counter, and so forth.
It depends on the tech. If the Russians or Chinese developed it they would want someone else to test it against us in proxy wars. Like the Russians testing their GPS-jamming gear on us, which they've done.
Sure, but you'd think they'd at least be willing to listen to WHY they've pissed people off so badly to the point more people are using this stuff.
Sure, they'd be happy to listen because maybe it gives them information about how to better design an ad that won't make you install adblock.
But they're not stupid enough to invite adblock to a conference on ads. Why would you give them more information with which to anticipate new ad strategies or technologies and take money away from you? People make decisions from pathos; but companies make decisions from their wallet.
Don't reinvent the wheel. Look for teacher forums where you'll find CS teachers who have found certain exercises are really great teaching exercises. Call other CS teachers at peer schools or schools that are a little better than yours. (You can also go to really great schools, but depending on where you're teaching may have to simplify a bit). Email teacher lists.
The examples most slashdotters think of may be good, but haven't been field-tested in the same way.
"2^74,207,281-1? That sounds like the combination an idiot would put on his luggage."
--Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money
Killing the enemy is killing, not murder. They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price.
Your lines about "people who have gone insane with power" and "accountable to no one" are bullshit.
You don't like it? Vote for someone else. I'll let you in on a secret - pretty much anyone likely to win will do the same thing. The US isn't going to let them kill American citizens and allies without paying a price.
Yes and no. Killing an enemy in a time of war is by definition not murder, but is killing with legal justification. (I.e. a designated enemy in a time of war, plus usually in self-defense or defense of others if the war is legal, since almost every legal war today is couched in self-defense).
That does not necessarily mean "They decided they wanted to make war on the US and it allies and now they are paying the price." Because (1) the guy you're killing is almost never the one who made that decision, and (2) sometimes you kill the wrong guy. Someone can be an enemy and be just as honorable as an American soldier, just like an American soldier can be just as dishonorable as someone acting on behalf of a bad guy.
Dehumanizing the enemy is as old as war.
I'm not defending ISIS--the shit they've pulled, every decision-maker deserves more than whatever happens to him. But some guy holding an AK who's standing near one of the decision-makers may just not want to get his family shot.
It turns out you can be a nerd about warfare, too.
This should have debuted at the friggin' Catalina Wine Mixer!
It's not a bad idea for the NY metro area if you have the landing pads--massive amounts of money and plenty of people willing to trade money for time. You could probably also do a good business in LA--there's some money and helicopters let you avoid the traffic.
If you have something meaningful to say, please log in. To do otherwise is to provide cover to trolls.
People have employers. Some employers require you to report online identities. (E.g. security clearances, major law firms, etc...) Others do not allow you to speak publicly on areas withing your purview without clearing it through PR.
I'd rather have the contributions of those people as ACs than not have them at all.
even advanced aliens wouldn't be able to build something capable of covering a fifth of a star in just a century. --Summary
So maybe the aliens aren't building it. Maybe they're just moving it... towards us...
Excuse me but it seems to me, that you are saying: "if the integration works - because the immigrants have the same hierarchy of values - then it may work". Duh.
However what we see in reality is, that the hierarchy of values is different. So if you say it "it does work", then I say "citation needed". I'm willing to believe that it is possible to show working integration of an particular individual/family. But on a large scale, the things are different.
Large Scale like The United States? Cause it kind of works here.
I think neither of you has ever looked up at the moon in the sky, or you'd have noticed you always see the same side.
Never seen the moon? Quick, do a google search.