The Military also has a law enforcement presence at extremely sensitive terrorist targets during times of heightened alert. For example, Grand Central Station in New York occasionally has a few soldiers on duty. Considering the ripple effect it would have on the world economy if you took it out at the wrong time of day, this is actually extremely sensible, but requiring them to work in coordination with law enforcement is entirely appropriate and consistent with the United States philosophy of a civilian-led military.
What are you, kidding? You have no real anonymity. AirBNB, Uber, your wireless carrier, and police license plate scanning databases already contain more than enough information about you to assemble your life fairly accuracy if you, for example, use vehicles. What you have is a thin veneer of anonymity that reduces the chance you will be held to account for online statements that nobody bothers to sue or prosecute you for.
So the purpose of cases like this is not *really* to get money back, so much as it is to fine a company for something that should never have happened and maybe make them take a corrective step or two... but legal fees were around 8 million bucks.
Which is kinda silly, because it was pretty obvious from the get-go that a company that loses data on 56 million payments sure as hell screwed up.
If the test is to check how well you've memorized facts, then the student who has to look them up on his smartwatch will be slower at completing the test than the one who has all the facts in her head. So a simple solution for memorization tests is to set an appropriate time limit that weeds out the cheaters.
That unfairly punishes people who have mastered the material but are slow and thoughtful. I am relatively quick so I always have an advantage in standardized testing environments, but shouldn't speed really be a *different* metric than mastery of the material? It is profoundly stupid to grade along one dimension.
And how would cheating on a test affect that decision? Is there a diagnosis code for "Screwdriver in the head" that tells you how to treat it?
No, you need to use code that most closely identifies the condition, in this case "headache." The insurance company assures me that aspirin is an appropriate treatment, so I will not worry about all these silly warnings. Who knows what an anticoagulant is, anyway?
Nope. Looks like you got it. Even from the summary:
But professors are striking back. "My microbiology professor does a watch check every time we have a test," says Abigail Lauze. "If it's not an old school analog it has to come off and go in the cell phone bin."
Sounds good. Every student gets a bag. Puts his/her name on it. Then puts ALL of his/her electronics into the bag. They can be reclaimed AFTER the test ON THEIR WAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.
This is what you do in real life. Important exams have requirements to limit the possibility of cheating except in incredibly trusting environments. Actuarial Exams, Bar Exams, Professional Responsibility Exams, all of them have very brief "permitted items" lists and prohibit non-analog watches. Some especially trusting colleges and graduate schools do not put such strict rules in place--"take home exams" are part of the culture in some places where cheating is not a problem, for example, especially for 24-hour exams.
Make checking emissions be part of a random number of police stops.
People game emissions tests; they've been doing it for decades. I knew a guy who had a light switch wired into a component in his engine that he would flip when he took it in for testing. Auto shops also have an incentive to pass the car, or at least almost pass the car and then do some work on it. And then there are the car manufacturers...
Justices never change their minds? then why do they even present the case. Just let them decide.
They do. Rarely. But let us pretend for a moment that we are not programmers who look for the exception to every rule.
It is a rare enough occurrence that when the Supreme Court votes in their first round, there is no discussion--they just go around the table saying how they are going to come out, IIRC in order of seniority, and the Chief Justice assigns the opinions. There can be some changed minds during opinion drafting.
It's not a given, but there is a reasonably high liklihood that if someone would vote on the side of the petitioner *and* thinks a majority of the court would also side with petitioner, then they would vote to approve the petition--so Scalia's absence is very unlikely to have made the difference. I'll grant it's not an absolute, though--sometimes they would side with petitioner if the case came before them, but don't think the case is important enough to spend their time on.
I'm wondering if Scalia's death caused them to lose. Apple was probably counting on his vote when they first agreed to pursue the litigation instead of settling for $70 mil. It's amazing how much of affect SCOTUS has. Probably too much...
No. It take four justices to agree to hear a case, which means that if Justice's Scalia's death made a difference in terms of whether they would hear the case, then they would have only had four justices on their side and would not have been able to win at the Supreme Court anyway.
Realistically, the Supreme Court very rarely takes cases to begin with. Big name parties like Apple makes them more likely to be heard, because the justices may be more interested and they will hire good experts to write the briefs and get amici on-board and the like, but it is still very unlikely. But complicated cases like in-depth patent or anti-trust cases are usually bad cases for making new case law, and they take up a lot of time, so the Supreme Court usually doesn't hear them anyway.
Perhaps Congress should change the price fixing laws...
There aren't really "price-fixing laws." The Sherman Anti-Trust act prohibits "restraint of trade," which is written by Congress to allow courts to develop antitrust law however they want. Technically every contract made could be "restraint of trade," but the courts generally only apply it to certain pretty explicit anti-competitive behavior, such as explicit price-fixing with competitors. You are still allowed to do other things which discourage competition, like integrating vertically within an industry.
Employees who work at a nuclear reactor during and immediately after a meltdown should get their healthcare and compensation for life, no questions asked We are asking them to stay and potentially risk horrifying deaths in order to give the public surrounding them time to evacuate; it is a heroic sacrifice for the good of the community and should be built into the cost and risk model of power companies installing nuclear plants.
Unless they are morons, the state will only appeal if they think this is a good test case for them. So this is unlikely to set particularly meaningful precedent.
Nancy Reagan had nowhere near the level of awesomeness that was Eleanor Roosevelt, but she did a few things.
After Ronald Reagan's term in office, she devoted most of her time to caring for her him. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, until his death at the age of 93 in 2004. Nancy remained active within the Reagan Library and in politics, particularly in support of embryonic stem cell research, until her death in 2016.
She was also well-known for her "Just say no" campaign on drugs; for replacing the White House China with a full service order from Lenox for the first time since the Truman administration; and for renovating the White House when it was in a state of disrepair, largely with private donations.
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a fraud on the voters. It is a proposed law that he knows is unconstitutional, so it would have no effect even if it were passed. And it is a proposed law he knows will never even be seriously voted on, much less pass, but will be referred to a subcommittee in order to die--it is a cheap campaign stunt.
The classic example of a do-nothing politician lying about doing something. Even if you agree with his position, this is basically a fraud on the voters.
It's not like the country needs power or anything...
The country doesn't needs nuclear meltdowns; neither does its power grid. If you shut down power plants, power gets more expensive and other power plants open. If a reactor melts down, not only is the land around it unusable for a while but the irrational public says, "ZOMG! Nuclear!" and you can't open a new nuclear plant for forty years.
If there is a problem, and there's no reason to believe there isn't, it should be fixed now before the height of summer A/C demand. Cooling is an incredible draw on our power supplies and the world is just getting hotter.
There are 25 million people in North Korea who have to be either killed or unbrainwashed, including over a million active duty personell. The only way to prevent decades of war--short of reducing 45,000 square miles to a sheet of glass--would be if you could capture and coerce (or simulate) their "Dear Leader" for an extended period of time after the conflict.
The case is in front a former AUSA (i.e. lots of experience on the government side), but she went to Williams College for undergrad which means she's probably one of the more intelligent federal judges--making her likely to read and understand the tech industry's briefs. (About half of federal judges are really smart and went to top schools; about half of them may not be as smart but have been successful politically. They all have a good measure of experience.)
Ultimately, of course, the case is likely to get appealed, and if the loser at the 9th Circuit level decides it is a good test case, they will appeal it to Scotus.
Opt-in is basically meaningless once a company has market power. It's basically saying you can have privacy rights if you are willing to give up participation in a big chunk of the economy. There may be other ways to participate, but they have cost in terms of time, money, convenience, or marketshare, for example.
For example, it is possible to live without a cell phone, so cell phones are opt in. But tracking data from them still has massive implications for privacy rights, and the fact that you have to opt-in shouldn't necessarily give cell carriers carte blanche to do whatever they want with your data.
You don't use kindle fire for the same kind of personal data you use your phone for, at least most of the time. Remember when there were librarians, and they seriously cared about and fought back against government demands to see what you checked out of the library?
Yeah. Amazon's not a librarian.
Amazon is a data-driven company that you have to assume keeps records of everything you do through them indefinitely. Since their ultimate market plan is to have a tiny slice of every transaction on the planet, they in many ways are a much bigger threat to your privacy than the FBI.
No; it's impossible because they need to have an incentive to communicate an answer, which they don't have. They expressly have incentives to talk past one another and score cheap points. They have no need to convince a neutral, intelligent person. Because of that the debates are exercises in not intelligently addressing problems, but rather in sounding to a wide and largely uninformed audience that you are capable of doing so. (Even most of the really smart audience members are not deeply educated on the particular problems that are being addressed. Any time you are well-educated about *anything* the candidates talk about, nine times out of ten you understand know there are, at best, profound flaws in their talking points about it.)
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
It can't be a real debate. A real debate requires that each of them be trying to persuade a fairly neutral party who has the power to shut them down and the intelligence to recognize when they are bullshitting. That way they have to actually know facts and understand how to use them to present their position. Pretty much the only time it ever happens is in the appellate courts.
The financial payoff is likely to be several orders of magnitude higher if you figure out how to hack ANY Department of Defense network and sell it on the black market vs working for the USG and pointing out the same flaws.
If the USG is serious about such a program, they might want to take this into consideration.
So is the risk.
That's how investment decisions work. Risk v. Reward. For example, if you bluff your way into the New York Fed and steal the gold in the basement, you're gonna be pretty rich. But good luck explaining that one away when they catch you.
Slashdot Mirror
The Military also has a law enforcement presence at extremely sensitive terrorist targets during times of heightened alert. For example, Grand Central Station in New York occasionally has a few soldiers on duty. Considering the ripple effect it would have on the world economy if you took it out at the wrong time of day, this is actually extremely sensible, but requiring them to work in coordination with law enforcement is entirely appropriate and consistent with the United States philosophy of a civilian-led military.
What are you, kidding? You have no real anonymity. AirBNB, Uber, your wireless carrier, and police license plate scanning databases already contain more than enough information about you to assemble your life fairly accuracy if you, for example, use vehicles. What you have is a thin veneer of anonymity that reduces the chance you will be held to account for online statements that nobody bothers to sue or prosecute you for.
So the purpose of cases like this is not *really* to get money back, so much as it is to fine a company for something that should never have happened and maybe make them take a corrective step or two... but legal fees were around 8 million bucks.
Which is kinda silly, because it was pretty obvious from the get-go that a company that loses data on 56 million payments sure as hell screwed up.
Casinos are used to launder money all the time, you put dirty money on the table and get back 70-80% of the face value back in clean money.
Casinos still have to report payouts of more than $10,000, per federal Anti-Money-Laundering laws or regulations.
If the test is to check how well you've memorized facts, then the student who has to look them up on his smartwatch will be slower at completing the test than the one who has all the facts in her head. So a simple solution for memorization tests is to set an appropriate time limit that weeds out the cheaters.
That unfairly punishes people who have mastered the material but are slow and thoughtful. I am relatively quick so I always have an advantage in standardized testing environments, but shouldn't speed really be a *different* metric than mastery of the material? It is profoundly stupid to grade along one dimension.
And how would cheating on a test affect that decision? Is there a diagnosis code for "Screwdriver in the head" that tells you how to treat it?
No, you need to use code that most closely identifies the condition, in this case "headache." The insurance company assures me that aspirin is an appropriate treatment, so I will not worry about all these silly warnings. Who knows what an anticoagulant is, anyway?
Nope. Looks like you got it. Even from the summary:
Sounds good. Every student gets a bag. Puts his/her name on it. Then puts ALL of his/her electronics into the bag. They can be reclaimed AFTER the test ON THEIR WAY OUT OF THE CLASSROOM.
This is what you do in real life. Important exams have requirements to limit the possibility of cheating except in incredibly trusting environments. Actuarial Exams, Bar Exams, Professional Responsibility Exams, all of them have very brief "permitted items" lists and prohibit non-analog watches. Some especially trusting colleges and graduate schools do not put such strict rules in place--"take home exams" are part of the culture in some places where cheating is not a problem, for example, especially for 24-hour exams.
Make checking emissions be part of a random number of police stops.
People game emissions tests; they've been doing it for decades. I knew a guy who had a light switch wired into a component in his engine that he would flip when he took it in for testing. Auto shops also have an incentive to pass the car, or at least almost pass the car and then do some work on it. And then there are the car manufacturers...
Justices never change their minds? then why do they even present the case. Just let them decide.
They do. Rarely. But let us pretend for a moment that we are not programmers who look for the exception to every rule.
It is a rare enough occurrence that when the Supreme Court votes in their first round, there is no discussion--they just go around the table saying how they are going to come out, IIRC in order of seniority, and the Chief Justice assigns the opinions. There can be some changed minds during opinion drafting.
It's not a given, but there is a reasonably high liklihood that if someone would vote on the side of the petitioner *and* thinks a majority of the court would also side with petitioner, then they would vote to approve the petition--so Scalia's absence is very unlikely to have made the difference. I'll grant it's not an absolute, though--sometimes they would side with petitioner if the case came before them, but don't think the case is important enough to spend their time on.
I'm wondering if Scalia's death caused them to lose. Apple was probably counting on his vote when they first agreed to pursue the litigation instead of settling for $70 mil. It's amazing how much of affect SCOTUS has. Probably too much...
No. It take four justices to agree to hear a case, which means that if Justice's Scalia's death made a difference in terms of whether they would hear the case, then they would have only had four justices on their side and would not have been able to win at the Supreme Court anyway.
Realistically, the Supreme Court very rarely takes cases to begin with. Big name parties like Apple makes them more likely to be heard, because the justices may be more interested and they will hire good experts to write the briefs and get amici on-board and the like, but it is still very unlikely. But complicated cases like in-depth patent or anti-trust cases are usually bad cases for making new case law, and they take up a lot of time, so the Supreme Court usually doesn't hear them anyway.
Perhaps Congress should change the price fixing laws...
There aren't really "price-fixing laws." The Sherman Anti-Trust act prohibits "restraint of trade," which is written by Congress to allow courts to develop antitrust law however they want. Technically every contract made could be "restraint of trade," but the courts generally only apply it to certain pretty explicit anti-competitive behavior, such as explicit price-fixing with competitors. You are still allowed to do other things which discourage competition, like integrating vertically within an industry.
Employees who work at a nuclear reactor during and immediately after a meltdown should get their healthcare and compensation for life, no questions asked We are asking them to stay and potentially risk horrifying deaths in order to give the public surrounding them time to evacuate; it is a heroic sacrifice for the good of the community and should be built into the cost and risk model of power companies installing nuclear plants.
Unless they are morons, the state will only appeal if they think this is a good test case for them. So this is unlikely to set particularly meaningful precedent.
Nancy Reagan had nowhere near the level of awesomeness that was Eleanor Roosevelt, but she did a few things.
After Ronald Reagan's term in office, she devoted most of her time to caring for her him. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease in 1994, until his death at the age of 93 in 2004. Nancy remained active within the Reagan Library and in politics, particularly in support of embryonic stem cell research, until her death in 2016.
She was also well-known for her "Just say no" campaign on drugs; for replacing the White House China with a full service order from Lenox for the first time since the Truman administration; and for renovating the White House when it was in a state of disrepair, largely with private donations.
I wonder if these are the same people making gui design decisions for windows 10.. I bet the same department head signs both teams' checks.
They have 118,000 employees. Blaming them all is like blaming the army when you don't get your social security check.
That is a bill of attainder and is unconstitutional.
Not only is it unconstitutional, it is a fraud on the voters. It is a proposed law that he knows is unconstitutional, so it would have no effect even if it were passed. And it is a proposed law he knows will never even be seriously voted on, much less pass, but will be referred to a subcommittee in order to die--it is a cheap campaign stunt.
The classic example of a do-nothing politician lying about doing something. Even if you agree with his position, this is basically a fraud on the voters.
It's not like the country needs power or anything...
The country doesn't needs nuclear meltdowns; neither does its power grid. If you shut down power plants, power gets more expensive and other power plants open. If a reactor melts down, not only is the land around it unusable for a while but the irrational public says, "ZOMG! Nuclear!" and you can't open a new nuclear plant for forty years.
If there is a problem, and there's no reason to believe there isn't, it should be fixed now before the height of summer A/C demand. Cooling is an incredible draw on our power supplies and the world is just getting hotter.
There are 25 million people in North Korea who have to be either killed or unbrainwashed, including over a million active duty personell. The only way to prevent decades of war--short of reducing 45,000 square miles to a sheet of glass--would be if you could capture and coerce (or simulate) their "Dear Leader" for an extended period of time after the conflict.
The case is in front a former AUSA (i.e. lots of experience on the government side), but she went to Williams College for undergrad which means she's probably one of the more intelligent federal judges--making her likely to read and understand the tech industry's briefs. (About half of federal judges are really smart and went to top schools; about half of them may not be as smart but have been successful politically. They all have a good measure of experience.)
Ultimately, of course, the case is likely to get appealed, and if the loser at the 9th Circuit level decides it is a good test case, they will appeal it to Scotus.
The difference is Amazon is opt-in.
Opt-in is basically meaningless once a company has market power. It's basically saying you can have privacy rights if you are willing to give up participation in a big chunk of the economy. There may be other ways to participate, but they have cost in terms of time, money, convenience, or marketshare, for example.
For example, it is possible to live without a cell phone, so cell phones are opt in. But tracking data from them still has massive implications for privacy rights, and the fact that you have to opt-in shouldn't necessarily give cell carriers carte blanche to do whatever they want with your data.
You don't use kindle fire for the same kind of personal data you use your phone for, at least most of the time. Remember when there were librarians, and they seriously cared about and fought back against government demands to see what you checked out of the library?
Yeah. Amazon's not a librarian.
Amazon is a data-driven company that you have to assume keeps records of everything you do through them indefinitely. Since their ultimate market plan is to have a tiny slice of every transaction on the planet, they in many ways are a much bigger threat to your privacy than the FBI.
But they're really convenient.
No; it's impossible because they need to have an incentive to communicate an answer, which they don't have. They expressly have incentives to talk past one another and score cheap points. They have no need to convince a neutral, intelligent person. Because of that the debates are exercises in not intelligently addressing problems, but rather in sounding to a wide and largely uninformed audience that you are capable of doing so. (Even most of the really smart audience members are not deeply educated on the particular problems that are being addressed. Any time you are well-educated about *anything* the candidates talk about, nine times out of ten you understand know there are, at best, profound flaws in their talking points about it.)
A joint press conference is not a debate. Trading insults in an unstructured (except for time) way is not a debate. BSing and not being able to get called on it is not a debate.
It can't be a real debate. A real debate requires that each of them be trying to persuade a fairly neutral party who has the power to shut them down and the intelligence to recognize when they are bullshitting. That way they have to actually know facts and understand how to use them to present their position. Pretty much the only time it ever happens is in the appellate courts.
The financial payoff is likely to be several orders of magnitude higher if you figure out how to hack ANY Department of Defense network and sell it on the black market vs working for the USG and pointing out the same flaws.
If the USG is serious about such a program, they might want to take this into consideration.
So is the risk.
That's how investment decisions work. Risk v. Reward. For example, if you bluff your way into the New York Fed and steal the gold in the basement, you're gonna be pretty rich. But good luck explaining that one away when they catch you.
Plus, you know, treason.