I'm the "don't look for something until I need it, then I buy it" kind of person.
you're also the extremely naive kind of person. do you know anyone at all that freely admits they are influenced by ads and they activelu click on them? if you know a few people, does it possibly account for billions of dollars spent on advertising? no company spends billions without being absolutely assured they are getting a return on their investment.
the effect of advertising is much more subtle than that. so you glance at a Coke ad. you glance at it 20x a week. then when you are at the store and you see a Coke, you get a familiar feeling. you subconsciously associate Coke with the sexy girls and fun times in the ads you subconsciously glanced at. Coke feels okay, and you buy it. It works, and you aren't immune as much as you like to think you are smarter than the rest of us.
Bet we'll see within 3 months that they're reversing this stance, or within a year it shuts down.
uh. no? if you are visiting their site w/ ad blocking, you are contributing NOTHING to their bottom line. you are actually costing them money. if they have a choice between not being in business, and letting ad blocking users drain money from them and give nothing in return, what do you think they'll choose?
queue overly complicated rebuttal explaining how you are indirectly helping them in some way.
^^^ pretty much. i love the "no one could be THAT stupid" defense. so really, all i need to do to get away with a crime is to make sure i'm really obvious when i commit it?
you left your bicycle on your porch without a lock, whaddya expect? you walked down a dark street at night, whaddya expect? you left your car unlocked and your wallet on the seat, whaddya expect? you set down your backpack containing a laptop in the seat next to you on the train and turned your head, whaddya expect? you threw out some paperwork that listed your social security number and other personal information, whaddya expect?...
see where that goes? enjoy your uptopia where making a mistake a mistake completely removes your protection under the law.
no, but using the information found there for cyber warfare against your competition is.
Chris Lambert has been revealed by Uber's investigations to be associated with the accessing of a security key that was accidentally deposited on GitHub in 2014 and used to access 50,000 database records of Uber drivers later that year.
or maybe you are suggesting the "you made it easy for me to commit the crime" defense? like, you left your bike unlocked, therefore it's mine for the taking?
In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
easy enough for you?
in either of the cases you sighted, has unlawful gain occurred? and if you say something like "unlawfully gained TV time from avoiding dish duty", you should be slapped.
dude, no one knows what the hell you are saying. you are right, it's definitely unclear how much of a deterrent punishment provides, but i can say one thing for sure, having ZERO punishment provides ZERO deterrent.
i could couldn't care less anyway. if someone does a crime, they should do the time. whether the motivation is deterrence, "justice", revenge, monetary compensation, or whatever. it's called being accountable for your actions. it's something we teach our kids, and it's a pretty good standard.
really, WTF are you saying? corporations should be able to cheat the system for as long as they can hide it, and when found out, their only punishment is that they need to find a new way to cheat?
everyone gets what you are saying about the economic ramifications, but simply letting them get away with it isn't something that society should let happen. there's a greater good to be had beyond the immediate hardships to VW stockholders and employees. you nip this on the bud, and show to VW and the greater industry that cheating doesn't pay. and yes, corporations do respond to fines. they exist to maximize profits and they simply won't participate in cheating if it doesn't maximize their profits.
Do you honestly think McDonald's is changing anything they do based on this? How about Coke? Apple? John Deere? Bank of America?
you can count on corporations to maximize profits. if cheating is profitable, they will. and vice versa. the *only* way to keep them from cheating is to make it not profitable, and that means fining them disproportionately to the profits gained from the act.
Why? Because the people who profited from this don't care if the company is fined into nothing in 5 years, they got theirs today.
of course they care. the people that profited are shareholders / investors that unless participating in insider trading still owned their stock when it plunged. at this point tough decision as to whether to hold on and hope for a comeback or just dump it. either way, not good for them.
We have plenty of humans here on earth... some would say a growing concern of way too focking many.
the psychological profile of people with a death wish aren't the same as those that you can expect to successfully live for years in an irradiated tin can.
Again: There is NOx in your air right now, that you're breathing. If you go outside, there's like 8 times as much NOx in that air.
it's not the NOx, it's the products thereof it like ozone, as i quoted 2x now.
yes, there' NOx now, but less is better. what exactly is your argument? there's trace amounts of arsenic in a water source, so f*** it, let's dump as much as we want? or what? you are saying that since these polluting cars don't measurably increase the NOx in the atmosphere, we shouldn't restrict them? you do realize that sums add to a whole right?
We choose to go to mars not because it's easy, but because.... Wait... it's not easy? Oh, well lets give up then
OTOH, being hard isn't a good reason either is it?
there'd better be a damn big payoff for trillions of taxpayer dollars. all things being equal, i'd send humans but we can get the same science by sending more and more advanced probes at a fraction of the cost.
secondly, some things simply aren't within our grasp technically. going back to the moon appears to be a bridge too far. how many times difficult is it to get to mars? fine, keep at the innovation that's going to get us there eventually, but stop setting unrealistic goals of getting to mars in 10 years, or whatever.
You may as well complain that you're going to drown because the relative humidity is 70% today, citing that inhaling water is harmful.
breathing water doesn't harm your lungs, AFAIK.
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics).
asthmatics like me. you can keep plunking out numbers but i'm going to choose to believe the people whose job it us to determine such things vs. some random slashdot poster. yes i know govt regulations aren't always spot on, but not being an expert in the topic myself, i'm going to trust the experts.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm the "don't look for something until I need it, then I buy it" kind of person.
you're also the extremely naive kind of person. do you know anyone at all that freely admits they are influenced by ads and they activelu click on them? if you know a few people, does it possibly account for billions of dollars spent on advertising? no company spends billions without being absolutely assured they are getting a return on their investment.
the effect of advertising is much more subtle than that. so you glance at a Coke ad. you glance at it 20x a week. then when you are at the store and you see a Coke, you get a familiar feeling. you subconsciously associate Coke with the sexy girls and fun times in the ads you subconsciously glanced at. Coke feels okay, and you buy it. It works, and you aren't immune as much as you like to think you are smarter than the rest of us.
Bet we'll see within 3 months that they're reversing this stance, or within a year it shuts down.
uh. no? if you are visiting their site w/ ad blocking, you are contributing NOTHING to their bottom line. you are actually costing them money. if they have a choice between not being in business, and letting ad blocking users drain money from them and give nothing in return, what do you think they'll choose?
queue overly complicated rebuttal explaining how you are indirectly helping them in some way.
^^^ pretty much. i love the "no one could be THAT stupid" defense. so really, all i need to do to get away with a crime is to make sure i'm really obvious when i commit it?
but waddaya expect?!
retarded reasoning.
you left your bicycle on your porch without a lock, whaddya expect? ...
you walked down a dark street at night, whaddya expect?
you left your car unlocked and your wallet on the seat, whaddya expect?
you set down your backpack containing a laptop in the seat next to you on the train and turned your head, whaddya expect?
you threw out some paperwork that listed your social security number and other personal information, whaddya expect?
see where that goes? enjoy your uptopia where making a mistake a mistake completely removes your protection under the law.
Accessing Github is crime?
no, but using the information found there for cyber warfare against your competition is.
Chris Lambert has been revealed by Uber's investigations to be associated with the accessing of a security key that was accidentally deposited on GitHub in 2014 and used to access 50,000 database records of Uber drivers later that year.
or maybe you are suggesting the "you made it easy for me to commit the crime" defense? like, you left your bike unlocked, therefore it's mine for the taking?
It doesn't make sense on too many levels. What a bunch of crap.
don't be ridiculous. they did it for the 8% pay increase at the end of the year.
in other news, stupid people among the most heavily impacted by the fantasy sports insider trading scandal.
i said, all of your ebooks will be stored on amazon's cloud. don't you listen?
all of your ebooks will be stored in amazon's cloud. why would they be on the SD card?
as for A+ titles, they have much more than Netflix.
was that the point? i think he's saying it doesn't make sense to withhold amazon video from the google play app store and chromecast?
citation? really, does google refuse to allow amazon video app on chromecast / google play store?
In law, fraud is deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
easy enough for you?
in either of the cases you sighted, has unlawful gain occurred? and if you say something like "unlawfully gained TV time from avoiding dish duty", you should be slapped.
dude, no one knows what the hell you are saying. you are right, it's definitely unclear how much of a deterrent punishment provides, but i can say one thing for sure, having ZERO punishment provides ZERO deterrent.
i could couldn't care less anyway. if someone does a crime, they should do the time. whether the motivation is deterrence, "justice", revenge, monetary compensation, or whatever. it's called being accountable for your actions. it's something we teach our kids, and it's a pretty good standard.
really, WTF are you saying? corporations should be able to cheat the system for as long as they can hide it, and when found out, their only punishment is that they need to find a new way to cheat?
everyone gets what you are saying about the economic ramifications, but simply letting them get away with it isn't something that society should let happen. there's a greater good to be had beyond the immediate hardships to VW stockholders and employees. you nip this on the bud, and show to VW and the greater industry that cheating doesn't pay. and yes, corporations do respond to fines. they exist to maximize profits and they simply won't participate in cheating if it doesn't maximize their profits.
Do you honestly think McDonald's is changing anything they do based on this? How about Coke? Apple? John Deere? Bank of America?
you can count on corporations to maximize profits. if cheating is profitable, they will. and vice versa. the *only* way to keep them from cheating is to make it not profitable, and that means fining them disproportionately to the profits gained from the act.
Why? Because the people who profited from this don't care if the company is fined into nothing in 5 years, they got theirs today.
of course they care. the people that profited are shareholders / investors that unless participating in insider trading still owned their stock when it plunged. at this point tough decision as to whether to hold on and hope for a comeback or just dump it. either way, not good for them.
You do understand
that sentences
do
not require newlines between
them, right?
If there's no mineral wealth to exploit on the Moon, then there is almost no point in colonizing it.
If there's no mineral wealth to exploit on the Mars, then there is almost no point in colonizing it.
We have plenty of humans here on earth... some would say a growing concern of way too focking many.
the psychological profile of people with a death wish aren't the same as those that you can expect to successfully live for years in an irradiated tin can.
Again: There is NOx in your air right now, that you're breathing. If you go outside, there's like 8 times as much NOx in that air.
it's not the NOx, it's the products thereof it like ozone, as i quoted 2x now.
yes, there' NOx now, but less is better. what exactly is your argument? there's trace amounts of arsenic in a water source, so f*** it, let's dump as much as we want? or what? you are saying that since these polluting cars don't measurably increase the NOx in the atmosphere, we shouldn't restrict them? you do realize that sums add to a whole right?
really terrible reasoning.
We choose to go to mars not because it's easy, but because .... Wait... it's not easy?
Oh, well lets give up then
OTOH, being hard isn't a good reason either is it?
there'd better be a damn big payoff for trillions of taxpayer dollars. all things being equal, i'd send humans but we can get the same science by sending more and more advanced probes at a fraction of the cost.
secondly, some things simply aren't within our grasp technically. going back to the moon appears to be a bridge too far. how many times difficult is it to get to mars? fine, keep at the innovation that's going to get us there eventually, but stop setting unrealistic goals of getting to mars in 10 years, or whatever.
You may as well complain that you're going to drown because the relative humidity is 70% today, citing that inhaling water is harmful.
breathing water doesn't harm your lungs, AFAIK.
NOx reacts with volatile organic compounds in the presence of sunlight to form ozone. Ozone can cause adverse effects such as damage to lung tissue and reduction in lung function mostly in susceptible populations (children, elderly, asthmatics).
asthmatics like me. you can keep plunking out numbers but i'm going to choose to believe the people whose job it us to determine such things vs. some random slashdot poster. yes i know govt regulations aren't always spot on, but not being an expert in the topic myself, i'm going to trust the experts.
If I own a $1 share in Company X and it is sued for $973 bazillion, my liability is limited to $1.
okay let me rephrase that: shareholders have limited monetary responsibility.
you said,
NOx emissions are relatively harmless.
i somehow tend to believe every other piece of information in the 'net and the EPA that disagrees with uoi.