The first is neither illegal nor immoral per se, though forcing their narrow-minded views on others is not exactly "do unto others as you would have done unto you". The second is certainly suspicious, and, since it involves a foreign country, is exactly the sort of thing the NSA was originally created to be monitoring. The third . . . yes, a lot of cash is suspicious in this day of debit/gift cards, but "structured withdrawal" is only "wrong" because a law was passed against it comparatively recently. It's like the difference between driving a little over the speed limit in good conditions, and driving drunk: one is wrong because there's a rule against it, and the other is clearly endangering both yourself and others.
If he had just set up an account and given the debit card to the recipient, like a parent setting up an account for their kid at college, nobody would have ever noticed.
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts, or one person paying another for a car or boat, or any other legitimate transfer of money between people. "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide", and maybe the nice investigating agent will understand and close the case . . . or maybe they'll just assume that (cash == drugs) and keep tailing and watching you forever.
At some point, everything was original. Well, not really 100% "original", but at least the first of its series / variation-on-the-theme. Without taking a chance now and then, there's nothing worth sequel-izing.
In particular, considering they specialize in online courses, how can they patent "learning the thing that other people already did which is why we even exist and you're reading about it"?
No, that's the whole point of marketing and advertising. People do NOT understand that. They especially do NOT understand that in many ways they are reverting to the 1960s/1970s remote-mainframe. People understand that they get email service from their ISP, and all sorts of services from Google, but the phrase "cloud computing" seems almost intended to obfuscate the fact that at some point it's a specific computer run by a specific company - or maybe it's just obfuscating the responsibility of exactly WHICH company, so that when something goes wrong everyone can point fingers at everyone else. Who is responsible for backup? security? It always turns out to be someone else in the obscuring cloud. Stop calling it "cloud", and start calling it "remote services", and it becomes clear that you are doing business with someone who has responsibilities.
I used this system to get a reprint of last year's form, lost to a hard drive crash (yes, I know, backups). How can anyone distinguish legitimate from illegitimate access?
I graduated high school in 1972. Signing up for SSNs was about like signing up for the draft, except girls were included - we all filled out the form one day in home room, maybe 9th grade. So, yes, my original card DID say that very clearly . . . and then it became used as a "secret password" almost immediately.
I can understand the engineer's union attitude towards this. Would YOU want a camera on you all day? Do we really need to know whether the engineer picks his nose? OTOH it really should deter people from, e.g., talking on the phone while they're supposed to be driving. To balance the preventive threat and the privacy issue, the video should be under seal somehow, and wiped after a few days - unwatched! - if nothing interesting happened that day. Maybe an hour of each person gets viewed once a week or so, which hour and which day chosen at random, just like drivers never knowing when there's a police car sitting on the shoulder around a bend.
. . . . complete with classmates. Since this is Elon Musk, at least we can be sure that any useful findings will be turned around into production as soon as possible.
Why should it be more complicated than any other multiple partnership? Like, say, a law firm, or a medical practice? In some cases, the partners avoid the issue by setting up a company - nominally a new entity separate from all of them - and split the ownership. In others there is a set of agreements between all of the people. Of course, "marriage" is the one partnership arrangement that is given special treatment ALL ACROSS the legal spectrum, which is one of the reasons that "civil union" wasn't good enough for the gay marriage issue - equal treatment has to be the equal name or it might appear that all of those other connections don't apply. It still seems to me that the corollary is stronger than the differences.
Response (#49752979) was reassuring that the imagery would be blurred so it wouldn't matter. I was countering that response's pollyana-ism and (indirectly) agreeing with the earlier post. It's the person I was responding to who doesn't get the privacy concerns.
Post #49752693 was concerned about " turning every single policeman into a walking surveillance device.". Response (#49752979) was reassuring that the imagery would be blurred so it wouldn't matter. I was countering that response's pollyana-ism and (indirectly) agreeing with the earlier post. It's the person I was responding to who doesn't get the privacy concerns.
And you believe that the blurred copy is the one that is archived and reviewed for security, and future use in court? the only copy? rather than the original footage that could actually be used to prove a particular person is the one who did something? Sorry, that sounds inconsistent.
Hint: the number of terrorists is tiny compared with the total population.
Hmm. Maybe if we just called them "criminals against society", instead of justifying and explaining their actions as politically or religiously based, it would simplify things.
Just from a statistical standpoint, in the recent three or four decades (especially since the quieting of the Irish troubles), there seem to be a lot more incidents of Muslim fundamentalists killing people, and organizing into large groups to kill people, than there are incidents of Christian (any denomination) or any other religion's fundamentalists. So, on average, I'd worry more about meeting someone from that particular group. (Notable exception; the Hutu/Tutsi conflict wasn't world-religion based. It was just about killing people.)
In the problem specification, it says that the devices have the same IP. Maybe the installation program relies on this. Since it's an embedded system, changing it may not be possible. OP has to deal with the situation as it is, and "change the situation" is not a simple option.
I agree with your central point; I have worked with a market research person who really figured out what the customers wanted and what the market would want in a year or two, which meant that we engineers made the right product that people bought. OTOH most "marketing" people I've met are just salespeople.
He would be going back and forth to work anyway. The only question I would have: is 10 bucks is a reasonable split of costs, or is the driver making a profit? (Including, is the driver sharing in the total cost?) If it's profiteering, then it's on or over the line. If it's sharing the cost, then it's sharing the ride. Uber and Lyft are directing drivers where they wouldn't have been going otherwise, charging fees clearly priced to make a profit. They're taxi dispatching services.
The difference is that these arrangements are truly between individuals, who were going that way anyway. We have a car-pool board here at work, and I remember a "ride home" carpool bulletin board at college. That's sharing. Uber and Lyft claim that they're just a dating service, and if the "date" turns out to be a hooker it's not their fault - but they also handle the transactions, so it is.
++this. These are deliberate end-runs around existing taxi regulations. Claiming that it's "voluntary" and "crowd-sourced" is just a variation on companies calling people "contractors" (instead of "employees") to avoid giving them benefits. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels
Slashdot Mirror
The first is neither illegal nor immoral per se, though forcing their narrow-minded views on others is not exactly "do unto others as you would have done unto you". The second is certainly suspicious, and, since it involves a foreign country, is exactly the sort of thing the NSA was originally created to be monitoring. The third . . . yes, a lot of cash is suspicious in this day of debit/gift cards, but "structured withdrawal" is only "wrong" because a law was passed against it comparatively recently. It's like the difference between driving a little over the speed limit in good conditions, and driving drunk: one is wrong because there's a rule against it, and the other is clearly endangering both yourself and others.
If he had just set up an account and given the debit card to the recipient, like a parent setting up an account for their kid at college, nobody would have ever noticed.
++this. Get someone on whatever will stick, with whatever excuse for escalation can be made.
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts, or one person paying another for a car or boat, or any other legitimate transfer of money between people. "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide", and maybe the nice investigating agent will understand and close the case . . . or maybe they'll just assume that (cash == drugs) and keep tailing and watching you forever.
At some point, everything was original. Well, not really 100% "original", but at least the first of its series / variation-on-the-theme. Without taking a chance now and then, there's nothing worth sequel-izing.
In particular, considering they specialize in online courses, how can they patent "learning the thing that other people already did which is why we even exist and you're reading about it"?
No, that's the whole point of marketing and advertising. People do NOT understand that. They especially do NOT understand that in many ways they are reverting to the 1960s/1970s remote-mainframe. People understand that they get email service from their ISP, and all sorts of services from Google, but the phrase "cloud computing" seems almost intended to obfuscate the fact that at some point it's a specific computer run by a specific company - or maybe it's just obfuscating the responsibility of exactly WHICH company, so that when something goes wrong everyone can point fingers at everyone else. Who is responsible for backup? security? It always turns out to be someone else in the obscuring cloud. Stop calling it "cloud", and start calling it "remote services", and it becomes clear that you are doing business with someone who has responsibilities.
I used this system to get a reprint of last year's form, lost to a hard drive crash (yes, I know, backups). How can anyone distinguish legitimate from illegitimate access?
I graduated high school in 1972. Signing up for SSNs was about like signing up for the draft, except girls were included - we all filled out the form one day in home room, maybe 9th grade. So, yes, my original card DID say that very clearly . . . and then it became used as a "secret password" almost immediately.
I can understand the engineer's union attitude towards this. Would YOU want a camera on you all day? Do we really need to know whether the engineer picks his nose? OTOH it really should deter people from, e.g., talking on the phone while they're supposed to be driving. To balance the preventive threat and the privacy issue, the video should be under seal somehow, and wiped after a few days - unwatched! - if nothing interesting happened that day. Maybe an hour of each person gets viewed once a week or so, which hour and which day chosen at random, just like drivers never knowing when there's a police car sitting on the shoulder around a bend.
. . . . complete with classmates. Since this is Elon Musk, at least we can be sure that any useful findings will be turned around into production as soon as possible.
If it's on the same device, it's NOT a backup, because failure of a single device kills both copies.
And the worst part is, all that both the man and the goat wanted was a zipless one-night stand . . . .
polyandry and polygyny ... far too complicated
Why should it be more complicated than any other multiple partnership? Like, say, a law firm, or a medical practice? In some cases, the partners avoid the issue by setting up a company - nominally a new entity separate from all of them - and split the ownership. In others there is a set of agreements between all of the people. Of course, "marriage" is the one partnership arrangement that is given special treatment ALL ACROSS the legal spectrum, which is one of the reasons that "civil union" wasn't good enough for the gay marriage issue - equal treatment has to be the equal name or it might appear that all of those other connections don't apply. It still seems to me that the corollary is stronger than the differences.
Response (#49752979) was reassuring that the imagery would be blurred so it wouldn't matter. I was countering that response's pollyana-ism and (indirectly) agreeing with the earlier post. It's the person I was responding to who doesn't get the privacy concerns.
Post #49752693 was concerned about " turning every single policeman into a walking surveillance device.". Response (#49752979) was reassuring that the imagery would be blurred so it wouldn't matter. I was countering that response's pollyana-ism and (indirectly) agreeing with the earlier post. It's the person I was responding to who doesn't get the privacy concerns.
And you believe that the blurred copy is the one that is archived and reviewed for security, and future use in court? the only copy? rather than the original footage that could actually be used to prove a particular person is the one who did something? Sorry, that sounds inconsistent.
Hint: the number of terrorists is tiny compared with the total population.
Hmm. Maybe if we just called them "criminals against society", instead of justifying and explaining their actions as politically or religiously based, it would simplify things.
Just like fundamentalists of every religion.
Just from a statistical standpoint, in the recent three or four decades (especially since the quieting of the Irish troubles), there seem to be a lot more incidents of Muslim fundamentalists killing people, and organizing into large groups to kill people, than there are incidents of Christian (any denomination) or any other religion's fundamentalists. So, on average, I'd worry more about meeting someone from that particular group. (Notable exception; the Hutu/Tutsi conflict wasn't world-religion based. It was just about killing people.)
Joss Whedon is my master now.
I maintain that if Trekkies took over the world, they would put their capital on a west coast.
Unless we find a world where the sun rises in the west, in which case we'd put it on the EAST coast. It's all about the dramatic sunsets.
In the problem specification, it says that the devices have the same IP. Maybe the installation program relies on this. Since it's an embedded system, changing it may not be possible. OP has to deal with the situation as it is, and "change the situation" is not a simple option.
I agree with your central point; I have worked with a market research person who really figured out what the customers wanted and what the market would want in a year or two, which meant that we engineers made the right product that people bought. OTOH most "marketing" people I've met are just salespeople.
He would be going back and forth to work anyway. The only question I would have: is 10 bucks is a reasonable split of costs, or is the driver making a profit? (Including, is the driver sharing in the total cost?) If it's profiteering, then it's on or over the line. If it's sharing the cost, then it's sharing the ride. Uber and Lyft are directing drivers where they wouldn't have been going otherwise, charging fees clearly priced to make a profit. They're taxi dispatching services.
The difference is that these arrangements are truly between individuals, who were going that way anyway. We have a car-pool board here at work, and I remember a "ride home" carpool bulletin board at college. That's sharing. Uber and Lyft claim that they're just a dating service, and if the "date" turns out to be a hooker it's not their fault - but they also handle the transactions, so it is.
++this. These are deliberate end-runs around existing taxi regulations. Claiming that it's "voluntary" and "crowd-sourced" is just a variation on companies calling people "contractors" (instead of "employees") to avoid giving them benefits. "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Joseph Goebbels