Or the data being fed in could be biased. Take for example the idea of repeat criminal offenders. The data may say that in New York City, black men are more likely to be arrested after release than white men. But for years stop and frisk was in place so black men where constantly being stopped and frisked and arrested for minor infractions. So yes, they are more likely to be arrested by that is not the same as more likely to reoffend. They are more likely to be caught because the police stopped them more. So yes, the algorithm fed that data would say black men would reoffend more and it would be true to the data, but not true to the actual facts. Bias can be in the algorithm but it can also be in the data itself.
Maybe because it is a similar story? This happens all the time. For example, if a police officers is killed, usually they mention other officers from the same area that were killed. Or if there is a murder in Chicago, they mention other murders and the murder rate in Chicago, even though they are not directly related to this murder. If there is a protest somewhere, they will bring up other protests that were similar. This isn't something new that only applies to stories about Trump, this is a common journalistic tool used to expand the scope of an article and tie it into other related stories.
Except any employer with hourly employees tracks their time. To be able to pay these employees, they have to know when they started and stopped work. So Apple should be able to look at those logs and see who worked 8 hours without a lunch break. Simply force them to turn over the logs and then the court can work it out.
The reason he deserves that much (and maybe more) is because his reputation is totally ruined. People now believe he actually wanted to watch The Cobbler with Adam Sandler and there is no coming back from that.
Except for the fact you have only seen emails from one side. There is nothing to say the Trump side isn;t just as corrupt, we just haven't seen it.
That is what I find interesting about the reaction to the Clinton email leaks. Most of what is reported is stuff I have assumed goes on on both sides for a long time (dirty tricks, collusion with Super PACs, name calling, etc.) The difference in this case is we have an inside view of one of the sides so we can see it being done. There was very little shocking, it is just because of the hacked emails, we now have seen the inner workings of one side. There is nothing to say the other side isn't just as bad, we just haven't seen it yet.
So this certainly puts a different spin on the DNC and Clinton email hacks. It certainly looks more and more like they were politically motivated. A curious child could hack this setup and yet there has been no release of documents from the Trump campaign's email servers. If it truly was about just sharing information, why would they not attack both sides? The longer it goes, the more it looks like someone (or someones) is purposely trying to influence the election with the hacks and leaks. If Wikileaks was really about just releasing information, why would they be slowly releasing the hacked emails over time before the election instead of just releasing them all at once? IT's not like the scrub person information from them, so what is the purpose of slowly dishing them out if not to keep it in the news and influence people?
It all depends on who you are trying to secure against. For example, everyone says not to use things that are important to you because they are easy to guess. The thing is, if you are worried about outside hackers with no connection to you, they have no basis of guessing that stuff. In most attacks, the hacker has no clue who the account belongs to, so they have no idea that Pepper is your dog and 11/23/99 is your wedding day, so Pepper!112399 is not a terrible password. On the other hand, if you are worried about targeted hackers (whether it is someone who takes the time to actually research the user or someone in the user's life), that is going to be an easy password since they will know that information.
If you are worried about outside hackers, one of the best thing you can do is make really secure passwords and then write them down and keep them in your wallet. For most people, your wallet is one of the most secure places you have, since you already keep cash and credit cards there. Yes, people in your house have access to it, but if those aren't the people you are worried about it works great.
The thing is, there is no "fair market pricing" for a lot of health care. If you are in a car accident, you don't have the benefit of shopping around to different emergency rooms to find the best deal. Many times, you have no option and have to take what is there because you don;t have a week to research all your different options.
As for Medicare, they actually pay a reasonable cost. There is a group of physicians who actually figure out what it costs to perform certain functions and this is what the payments are based on. So they can't charge ridiculous prices like they do normally, they are forced to charge something reasonable based on what the task performed actually is. Most insurance companies actually negotiate their prices based off of the Medicare pricing. If everyone paid Medicare rates, providers wouldn't go bankrupt, but it wouldn't be the huge cash cow it is now.
Why should they have to do the research to disprove people's prejudices? If you want to claim blacks cause than whites, shouldn't you be the one to have some information to back up your claim before you start discriminating based on it?
So by this theory, white cops should fear whites because whites kill whites at similar "astronomically high levels" as blacks kill blacks. But of course that doesn't happen, because that is not what the fear is based on.
I really can't find something to bitch about here. Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email server was that she wasn't secure enough with it. Then, when she does do something secure, the knock is "See, she is so secure she must be hiding something!" Sorry, you can't bitch when she isn't secure and then bitch when she is. Was she hiding stuff? Most probably, since all politicians are. Do I trust her? Not a chance. But you can't set up a now in scenario as your reason for not liking her. You can't bitch about insecurity and then bitch about too much security at the same time.
Well, with Apple you have a point, but less so with Google. With Apple you HAVE to go through the app store or you have no way of getting on their products. With Google though, if you don't like their app store terms, you can always sell the app as a sideload app. Sure, it's not as nice, but then again if you aren't going to let Google have their cut via the app store what do you expect. The key is though, you have an option to completely avoid Google's app store and still get your app on their products.
I think most people (myself included) don;t care about smart TVs. It didn't factor in at all the last time I replaced my TV (about a year ago). I did end up getting one, but that is because any TV that isn't super cheap is a smart TV. I do use the Netflix app on mine, but that is because I use Windows Media Center as my main TV control and support for the Netflix app for that has been dropped. If I couldn't use the TV app, I would have just used my PS4 instead, so it's not like it was a big deal for me. But I would guess 75% of the people with smart TVs never even set up the apps on them.
This is one of the issues with drug testing. With alcohol, you drink it, it is in your system and impaired, and then it leaves your system. It makes it very easy to test for since if it is in your system, you have taken it recently and it is currently effecting you. With other drugs (pot being the most obvious) there is no simple way to test for it. It stays in your system so long there isn't a way to tell whether you just smoked a joint and are impaired or you smoked a joint last night and are fine now.
This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot (I'm not saying legalization is a bad thing, but not everything is being handled). There needs to be a way to tell if people are currently impaired as we don't want people driving/operating crane/whatever while they are high. Currently there isn't a good, standard, scientific way to do that (and yes, I know breathalyzers have plenty of problems as well). Until that happens, the best we have is either blood tests which show how much THC is in the blood, but not if it is actually affecting people or sobriety tests which can be highly subjective.
Kasich isn't a moderate, but he is what passes for a moderate Republican anymore. I'm from Ohio, so I know first hand how bad he is, but given the candidates remaining for the Republicans he is by far the best choice. I'm pulling for him because I want the least destructive Republican candidate to get the nomination because there is always a chance the Republicans win.
While I generally agree with him (less for privacy purposes and more for not paying a transaction fee to a credit card ever time), making it right would add a lot of potential problems to it. For example, what about online only transactions? Would Ebay or Spotify be required to somehow accept cash payments? I am all for companies not being forced to go electronic only, but I also wouldn't want to try and force every company to have to accept cash either.
The one thing they never ask in these surveys is if they would mind if the government looked at their internet history. People are okay with giving up freedom because they assume it is other people's freedom. It's easy to say the government should look through people's internet traffic because you assume you are a good person so the government would never have a reason to look through your internet traffic. But when you ask them specifically if they are okay with it happening to them they have to actually think about it. They never consider that the government gets it wrong. They never consider that someone from the government may have something against them. Forcing them to think about that means some people will suddenly have a problem with it. It is the same thing when lawmakers suddenly find out they are the ones that are being looked at. All those laws they voted for were for other people, not for them.
I like the idea of this. If we can get our mobile payments systemsup to snuff this would make things a lot easier. My issue is the hidden costs involved with it. One of the reasons I use cash is because I know it costs small businesses money if I use my credit card. I would rather get cash and pay that way for local shops than cost them the percentage they pay to the credit card company even though I may get a few cents back. The only way I could get behind this totally would be for there to be some way to make the payments with the middle man taking a big chunk of the money. IF it was true micropayments where the middle man takes a couple cents then maybe, but as long as it is a couple percent, I will still pay with cash.
I really like this policy. Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content. That is how you get content to stay around and be good. The issue is the terribly intrusive and deceptive ads that suck up bandwidth and annoy everyone. I switched to uBlock Origins a while ago because of the memory AdBlock sucks up, but if they can get that under control I may switch back just for this feature.
While I agree with every example you show, these are terrible comparisons. In none of these case is the resource sold to me as "unlimited". And besides that, I am told "you have X Mbps bandwidth for you to use" when I sign up for internet. I am in no way told I am sharing it with anyone else and in fact told the exact opposite. It is my bandwidth to use and I can use it "unlimited". I know better because I work in IT and know how these things actually work but Joe AverageUser has no idea how bandwidth and oversubscription and COs work, not should they need to. If you are told "this is for you and you can use it as much as you want" it is reasonable to assume it is for you and you can sue it as much as you want.
In other words, police have no idea how to do their job without being able to assault people, racially profile them, and generally be dicks. If these police are afraid to do their jobs because they might be filmed, the easiest solution is to hire police officers who don't do anything wrong that will be an issue if it ends up on tape. The reason people are taping the police constantly now is because they expect the police to do something wrong because they have shown in a lot of cases they do. If the police get better and stop setting the expectation they will treat people like garbage, then people won;t expect it and won't feel the need to film them constantly.
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I propose as a test that we use it on police departments to try and determine those officers that are most likely to abuse citizens. If it is successful in dropping those number significantly then we can talk about maybe trying it out on citizens.
While you are probably correct, my issue with this thinking is that they CAN go after anyone for making a replica. If the intent is that they will only go after people selling them, then that is how the law/ruling should read. The law currently gives them the ability to go after anyone creating a replica, even something as silly as a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard (no, I don't think they would ever be dumb enough to do that, but legally they could). We should never rely on companies to do the right thing and not abuse power. If we want that to happen, we shouldn't give them the power to begin with instead of just hoping they would never use it.
While in theory I agree, in practice, what else can we do? Someone commits a crime, they need to be punished. Sure, we can levy fines, but if the person is rich, they just pay them and it doesn't matter to them. If they are poor they can't pay them anyway so what do we do then? If someone steals a car, we can try and get them to pay for the car, but they probably don't have enough to do it. Sure, we can garnish wages for the future, but that is just a sure fire way of keeping the poor committing crimes because even when they do make money legally afterward, they won't get it.
While I agree he should have probably gotten a more severe penalty, comparing the civil cases versus a criminal case is an unfair comparison. The companies could still pursue a civil case against him and they have an automatic win on their hands because of the criminal conviction. He could end up with what he was sentenced to here PLUS a civil case for a huge amount. This isn't necessarily the end of it, it's just the end of what the government can do.
Also, I can't find anywhere exactly what he was convicted of, but I would guess this was felony level copyright violation, which means he now has a felony on his record which in reality is a much bigger deal than losing a civil case and owing the companies a ridiculous amount of money because it means you basically can't get a decent job anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the data being fed in could be biased. Take for example the idea of repeat criminal offenders. The data may say that in New York City, black men are more likely to be arrested after release than white men. But for years stop and frisk was in place so black men where constantly being stopped and frisked and arrested for minor infractions. So yes, they are more likely to be arrested by that is not the same as more likely to reoffend. They are more likely to be caught because the police stopped them more. So yes, the algorithm fed that data would say black men would reoffend more and it would be true to the data, but not true to the actual facts. Bias can be in the algorithm but it can also be in the data itself.
Maybe because it is a similar story? This happens all the time. For example, if a police officers is killed, usually they mention other officers from the same area that were killed. Or if there is a murder in Chicago, they mention other murders and the murder rate in Chicago, even though they are not directly related to this murder. If there is a protest somewhere, they will bring up other protests that were similar. This isn't something new that only applies to stories about Trump, this is a common journalistic tool used to expand the scope of an article and tie it into other related stories.
Except any employer with hourly employees tracks their time. To be able to pay these employees, they have to know when they started and stopped work. So Apple should be able to look at those logs and see who worked 8 hours without a lunch break. Simply force them to turn over the logs and then the court can work it out.
The reason he deserves that much (and maybe more) is because his reputation is totally ruined. People now believe he actually wanted to watch The Cobbler with Adam Sandler and there is no coming back from that.
Except for the fact you have only seen emails from one side. There is nothing to say the Trump side isn;t just as corrupt, we just haven't seen it.
That is what I find interesting about the reaction to the Clinton email leaks. Most of what is reported is stuff I have assumed goes on on both sides for a long time (dirty tricks, collusion with Super PACs, name calling, etc.) The difference in this case is we have an inside view of one of the sides so we can see it being done. There was very little shocking, it is just because of the hacked emails, we now have seen the inner workings of one side. There is nothing to say the other side isn't just as bad, we just haven't seen it yet.
So this certainly puts a different spin on the DNC and Clinton email hacks. It certainly looks more and more like they were politically motivated. A curious child could hack this setup and yet there has been no release of documents from the Trump campaign's email servers. If it truly was about just sharing information, why would they not attack both sides? The longer it goes, the more it looks like someone (or someones) is purposely trying to influence the election with the hacks and leaks. If Wikileaks was really about just releasing information, why would they be slowly releasing the hacked emails over time before the election instead of just releasing them all at once? IT's not like the scrub person information from them, so what is the purpose of slowly dishing them out if not to keep it in the news and influence people?
It all depends on who you are trying to secure against. For example, everyone says not to use things that are important to you because they are easy to guess. The thing is, if you are worried about outside hackers with no connection to you, they have no basis of guessing that stuff. In most attacks, the hacker has no clue who the account belongs to, so they have no idea that Pepper is your dog and 11/23/99 is your wedding day, so Pepper!112399 is not a terrible password. On the other hand, if you are worried about targeted hackers (whether it is someone who takes the time to actually research the user or someone in the user's life), that is going to be an easy password since they will know that information.
If you are worried about outside hackers, one of the best thing you can do is make really secure passwords and then write them down and keep them in your wallet. For most people, your wallet is one of the most secure places you have, since you already keep cash and credit cards there. Yes, people in your house have access to it, but if those aren't the people you are worried about it works great.
The thing is, there is no "fair market pricing" for a lot of health care. If you are in a car accident, you don't have the benefit of shopping around to different emergency rooms to find the best deal. Many times, you have no option and have to take what is there because you don;t have a week to research all your different options.
As for Medicare, they actually pay a reasonable cost. There is a group of physicians who actually figure out what it costs to perform certain functions and this is what the payments are based on. So they can't charge ridiculous prices like they do normally, they are forced to charge something reasonable based on what the task performed actually is. Most insurance companies actually negotiate their prices based off of the Medicare pricing. If everyone paid Medicare rates, providers wouldn't go bankrupt, but it wouldn't be the huge cash cow it is now.
Why should they have to do the research to disprove people's prejudices? If you want to claim blacks cause than whites, shouldn't you be the one to have some information to back up your claim before you start discriminating based on it?
So by this theory, white cops should fear whites because whites kill whites at similar "astronomically high levels" as blacks kill blacks. But of course that doesn't happen, because that is not what the fear is based on.
I really can't find something to bitch about here. Sure, Clinton sucks, but the big knock against her and her email server was that she wasn't secure enough with it. Then, when she does do something secure, the knock is "See, she is so secure she must be hiding something!" Sorry, you can't bitch when she isn't secure and then bitch when she is. Was she hiding stuff? Most probably, since all politicians are. Do I trust her? Not a chance. But you can't set up a now in scenario as your reason for not liking her. You can't bitch about insecurity and then bitch about too much security at the same time.
Well, with Apple you have a point, but less so with Google. With Apple you HAVE to go through the app store or you have no way of getting on their products. With Google though, if you don't like their app store terms, you can always sell the app as a sideload app. Sure, it's not as nice, but then again if you aren't going to let Google have their cut via the app store what do you expect. The key is though, you have an option to completely avoid Google's app store and still get your app on their products.
I think most people (myself included) don;t care about smart TVs. It didn't factor in at all the last time I replaced my TV (about a year ago). I did end up getting one, but that is because any TV that isn't super cheap is a smart TV. I do use the Netflix app on mine, but that is because I use Windows Media Center as my main TV control and support for the Netflix app for that has been dropped. If I couldn't use the TV app, I would have just used my PS4 instead, so it's not like it was a big deal for me. But I would guess 75% of the people with smart TVs never even set up the apps on them.
This is one of the issues with drug testing. With alcohol, you drink it, it is in your system and impaired, and then it leaves your system. It makes it very easy to test for since if it is in your system, you have taken it recently and it is currently effecting you. With other drugs (pot being the most obvious) there is no simple way to test for it. It stays in your system so long there isn't a way to tell whether you just smoked a joint and are impaired or you smoked a joint last night and are fine now.
This is one of the things that is being skipped over in the rush to legalize pot (I'm not saying legalization is a bad thing, but not everything is being handled). There needs to be a way to tell if people are currently impaired as we don't want people driving/operating crane/whatever while they are high. Currently there isn't a good, standard, scientific way to do that (and yes, I know breathalyzers have plenty of problems as well). Until that happens, the best we have is either blood tests which show how much THC is in the blood, but not if it is actually affecting people or sobriety tests which can be highly subjective.
Kasich isn't a moderate, but he is what passes for a moderate Republican anymore. I'm from Ohio, so I know first hand how bad he is, but given the candidates remaining for the Republicans he is by far the best choice. I'm pulling for him because I want the least destructive Republican candidate to get the nomination because there is always a chance the Republicans win.
While I generally agree with him (less for privacy purposes and more for not paying a transaction fee to a credit card ever time), making it right would add a lot of potential problems to it. For example, what about online only transactions? Would Ebay or Spotify be required to somehow accept cash payments? I am all for companies not being forced to go electronic only, but I also wouldn't want to try and force every company to have to accept cash either.
The one thing they never ask in these surveys is if they would mind if the government looked at their internet history. People are okay with giving up freedom because they assume it is other people's freedom. It's easy to say the government should look through people's internet traffic because you assume you are a good person so the government would never have a reason to look through your internet traffic. But when you ask them specifically if they are okay with it happening to them they have to actually think about it. They never consider that the government gets it wrong. They never consider that someone from the government may have something against them. Forcing them to think about that means some people will suddenly have a problem with it. It is the same thing when lawmakers suddenly find out they are the ones that are being looked at. All those laws they voted for were for other people, not for them.
I like the idea of this. If we can get our mobile payments systemsup to snuff this would make things a lot easier. My issue is the hidden costs involved with it. One of the reasons I use cash is because I know it costs small businesses money if I use my credit card. I would rather get cash and pay that way for local shops than cost them the percentage they pay to the credit card company even though I may get a few cents back. The only way I could get behind this totally would be for there to be some way to make the payments with the middle man taking a big chunk of the money. IF it was true micropayments where the middle man takes a couple cents then maybe, but as long as it is a couple percent, I will still pay with cash.
I really like this policy. Sites deserve to be able to show ads and make revenue on their content. That is how you get content to stay around and be good. The issue is the terribly intrusive and deceptive ads that suck up bandwidth and annoy everyone. I switched to uBlock Origins a while ago because of the memory AdBlock sucks up, but if they can get that under control I may switch back just for this feature.
While I agree with every example you show, these are terrible comparisons. In none of these case is the resource sold to me as "unlimited". And besides that, I am told "you have X Mbps bandwidth for you to use" when I sign up for internet. I am in no way told I am sharing it with anyone else and in fact told the exact opposite. It is my bandwidth to use and I can use it "unlimited". I know better because I work in IT and know how these things actually work but Joe AverageUser has no idea how bandwidth and oversubscription and COs work, not should they need to. If you are told "this is for you and you can use it as much as you want" it is reasonable to assume it is for you and you can sue it as much as you want.
In other words, police have no idea how to do their job without being able to assault people, racially profile them, and generally be dicks. If these police are afraid to do their jobs because they might be filmed, the easiest solution is to hire police officers who don't do anything wrong that will be an issue if it ends up on tape. The reason people are taping the police constantly now is because they expect the police to do something wrong because they have shown in a lot of cases they do. If the police get better and stop setting the expectation they will treat people like garbage, then people won;t expect it and won't feel the need to film them constantly.
I think this sounds like a wonderful idea. I propose as a test that we use it on police departments to try and determine those officers that are most likely to abuse citizens. If it is successful in dropping those number significantly then we can talk about maybe trying it out on citizens.
While you are probably correct, my issue with this thinking is that they CAN go after anyone for making a replica. If the intent is that they will only go after people selling them, then that is how the law/ruling should read. The law currently gives them the ability to go after anyone creating a replica, even something as silly as a 10 year old kid making one out of cardboard (no, I don't think they would ever be dumb enough to do that, but legally they could). We should never rely on companies to do the right thing and not abuse power. If we want that to happen, we shouldn't give them the power to begin with instead of just hoping they would never use it.
While in theory I agree, in practice, what else can we do? Someone commits a crime, they need to be punished. Sure, we can levy fines, but if the person is rich, they just pay them and it doesn't matter to them. If they are poor they can't pay them anyway so what do we do then? If someone steals a car, we can try and get them to pay for the car, but they probably don't have enough to do it. Sure, we can garnish wages for the future, but that is just a sure fire way of keeping the poor committing crimes because even when they do make money legally afterward, they won't get it.
While I agree he should have probably gotten a more severe penalty, comparing the civil cases versus a criminal case is an unfair comparison. The companies could still pursue a civil case against him and they have an automatic win on their hands because of the criminal conviction. He could end up with what he was sentenced to here PLUS a civil case for a huge amount. This isn't necessarily the end of it, it's just the end of what the government can do.
Also, I can't find anywhere exactly what he was convicted of, but I would guess this was felony level copyright violation, which means he now has a felony on his record which in reality is a much bigger deal than losing a civil case and owing the companies a ridiculous amount of money because it means you basically can't get a decent job anymore.