Probably because in the past you've promptly notified your lender that you have insurance.
I got a similar note from my lender (a local credit union) on my car loan 4ish years ago. They're just covering their bases and making sure you have the insurance mandated in the loan agreement - if you don't they charge you out the ass for theirs.
You don't think these ATMs will stay up if an exploit is published do you?
The sequence of events goes something like this: Bank buys shitty ATMs Exploits are developed People start stealing from ATMs Someone gives the ATM manufacturer the exploit and tells them to fix their problem People continue to steal from ATMs Someone (publicly) threatens to publish ATM company says, "hold on give us a minute to fix it" People continue stealing from ATMs
scenario A ATM company fixes the problem Banks and consumers never know their assets were exposed
scenario b ATM company stalls people continue to steal from ATMs someone publishes a whole lot of money is suddenly stolen in a very short time period Banks shut down all vulnerable ATMs Customers notice their ATMs don't work - maybe ask questions Banks sue ATM manufacturer, become a little more careful about who they do business with in the future
the outcome was that states don't have the authority to nullify federal law, and the federal government can and will send troops to enforce it's laws. The fact that a compromise was worked out only means that bluster can occasionally bring parties to the table.
While the nullifiers claimed victory on the tariff issue, even though they had made concessions, the verdict was very different on nullification. The majority had, in the end, ruled and this boded ill for the South and their minorities hold on slavery
I know it's snark, but the Deceleration of Independence never had any standing. All it was was us thumbing our noses at King George and letting him know we were prepared to fight for our independence.
Now the Treaty of Paris does have legal standing... But it also doesn't say anything about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
I think if the gov't asked them to hush it up that makes it worse.
I'd rather have a newspaper voluntarily self censor to keep someone alive than have the government dictate that newspapers censor, in the absence of a clear national security issue (i.e. troop movements).
It's my understanding the the government did not ask the NYT to censor, and some 40 news organizations cooperated to keep this quiet. So it seems many news organizations would act this way even if it isn't "one of their own." (although that makes me uneasy too.)
That's a little too wishy washy for me. Censors universally think they're acting for the public good.
I happen to think that in this particular case the censorship was acceptable, but I need a better justification than (a)see it worked out ok, or (b) they were trying to do the right thing.
I'd state the justification more like this: When at least one person's life is likely to be put in danger directly resulting from publication, and when the material censored doesn't have substantial cultural significance, media outlets are not ethically required to report the story, but neither are they ethically obligated to repress the story.
granted - but I've never heard of either of those novels being banned. Of course I don't get a tweet every time some asshole somewhere bans a book, so this is an honest question, did someone notable actually try to ban Fahrenheit 451 or 1984, or did the GGP just give that example because it would be ironic, if it did happen.
because it'll piss people off who want to go straight from an aggregator to the news?
When you see a story you want to read on google news, how do you decide which one you want to read? Personally, I prefer to avoid fox news and the WSJ (unless it's a business story) for a while, I wouldn't go to NYTimes because of the registration required nonsense (which did the same thing as what this judge wanted without requiring onerous legislation). The point is if you make it harder to get your version of a competitive product, people will go elsewhere, and it's better to get the couple cents from the ads that run on that particular stories page than it is to get nothing because you try to herd your traffic.
I'm going to note with amusement that rather than linking to the original opinion slashdot linked to a blog talking about the opinion. So even if you're the rare/.er who read TFA, unless you clicked though to the primary source the judge never got your pageview (his site isn't ad supported so he isn't impacted financially.) What's more the blog post is licensed under CC, and techcrunch and/. are both making money reporting their opinions on the judges opinion.
Read it again: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
It offers no protection to be secure against reasonable searches
Souter's saying that no matter how much evidence you have it's never reasonable to strip search a 13 year old if you're only looking for ibuprofen (or something similarly benign.)
He's leaving the door open for possible future strip searches of 13 year olds if they're looking for something genuinely dangerous - but you'd still have to meet at least the reasonable suspicion, if not the probable cause threshold. Presumably if you meet these thresholds the search isn't unreasonable.
This actually reinforces the 4th amendment, because it clarifies that not every search is reasonable just because you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed - the severity of the crime also factors into reasonableness.
The largest tree in the world is estimated to weigh 2100 metric tons, these "trees" would remove that much carbon in about 6 years.
Not saying the storage problems aren't significant, this purpose built machine takes carbon out a lot faster than growing trees, chopping them down, and burying them.
look at that link again. It fluctuates vs. the CPI (consumer price index). That's a measure of purchasing power. In other words, it's directly proportional to the gold to bread ratio.
The only thing remotely historic in these sections of cities like Detroit are shuttered factories. We're not talking about razing city centers, these are "near suburbs."
It depends where you are. In places like SE MI you're bulldozing one type of ghetto and restoring another. Most of this housing is cheep single family homes that were built between 1940 and 1960 within the city limits, and close to a factory. Because of white flight and factory closings there are a lot of those areas that are almost completely empty.
You know that Lowes commercial about the house the GI bought after WWII? Those are the properties they're looking to raze.
In spite of what HR related websites want you to believe it's not illegal to ask any of those questions. What it is, is a Real Bad Idea (TM). It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of a protected class, but it isn't illegal to ask per se. If you're foolish enough to ask one of those questions, it does leave you wide open to a law suit - but that suit is going to allege you discriminated based on that information, and they're most likely going to need some demographic information from your company to support their charges if you don't roll over and settle right away.
An example, a candidate named Hans Richtenfliegen interviews with Wienerhoffman schnitzel factory. The interviewer foolishly asks Hans, who happens to be German, if he still has any relatives back in the old country. Hans, after being turned down for the job, files a complaint with his local labor board alleging he was turned down based on his national origin. After some preliminary investigations, it turns out that 50% of upper management is of Germanic dissent, and the candidate who got the job, Jorg Waldenschwimmen, was also of German dissent. What's more, the overall demographics of the company closely conform to the demographics of the surrounding area. Hans is going to have a hard time making his case that something illegal took place based on that question. In other words, there's no such thing as an illegal question. But it's still a bad idea to tempt fate.
for political appointments asking for online hangouts might be due diligence, but for a normal career type job, it's over the line. (asking for passwords is just asinine no matter what the situation.)
Slashdot Mirror
no, that was actually funny and made a political statement.
This is just sad.
Probably because in the past you've promptly notified your lender that you have insurance.
I got a similar note from my lender (a local credit union) on my car loan 4ish years ago. They're just covering their bases and making sure you have the insurance mandated in the loan agreement - if you don't they charge you out the ass for theirs.
Too big to not fail?
You don't think these ATMs will stay up if an exploit is published do you?
The sequence of events goes something like this:
Bank buys shitty ATMs
Exploits are developed
People start stealing from ATMs
Someone gives the ATM manufacturer the exploit and tells them to fix their problem
People continue to steal from ATMs
Someone (publicly) threatens to publish
ATM company says, "hold on give us a minute to fix it"
People continue stealing from ATMs
scenario A
ATM company fixes the problem
Banks and consumers never know their assets were exposed
scenario b
ATM company stalls
people continue to steal from ATMs
someone publishes
a whole lot of money is suddenly stolen in a very short time period
Banks shut down all vulnerable ATMs
Customers notice their ATMs don't work - maybe ask questions
Banks sue ATM manufacturer, become a little more careful about who they do business with in the future
the outcome was that states don't have the authority to nullify federal law, and the federal government can and will send troops to enforce it's laws. The fact that a compromise was worked out only means that bluster can occasionally bring parties to the table.
See also secession and thecivil war
I know it's snark, but the Deceleration of Independence never had any standing. All it was was us thumbing our noses at King George and letting him know we were prepared to fight for our independence.
Now the Treaty of Paris does have legal standing... But it also doesn't say anything about life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.
That didn't work the first time.
I think if the gov't asked them to hush it up that makes it worse.
I'd rather have a newspaper voluntarily self censor to keep someone alive than have the government dictate that newspapers censor, in the absence of a clear national security issue (i.e. troop movements).
It's my understanding the the government did not ask the NYT to censor, and some 40 news organizations cooperated to keep this quiet. So it seems many news organizations would act this way even if it isn't "one of their own." (although that makes me uneasy too.)
That's a little too wishy washy for me. Censors universally think they're acting for the public good.
I happen to think that in this particular case the censorship was acceptable, but I need a better justification than (a)see it worked out ok, or (b) they were trying to do the right thing.
I'd state the justification more like this: When at least one person's life is likely to be put in danger directly resulting from publication, and when the material censored doesn't have substantial cultural significance, media outlets are not ethically required to report the story, but neither are they ethically obligated to repress the story.
granted - but I've never heard of either of those novels being banned. Of course I don't get a tweet every time some asshole somewhere bans a book, so this is an honest question, did someone notable actually try to ban Fahrenheit 451 or 1984, or did the GGP just give that example because it would be ironic, if it did happen.
Who tried to ban those novels? Was it notable, or some overzealous high school librarian?
because it'll piss people off who want to go straight from an aggregator to the news?
When you see a story you want to read on google news, how do you decide which one you want to read? Personally, I prefer to avoid fox news and the WSJ (unless it's a business story) for a while, I wouldn't go to NYTimes because of the registration required nonsense (which did the same thing as what this judge wanted without requiring onerous legislation). The point is if you make it harder to get your version of a competitive product, people will go elsewhere, and it's better to get the couple cents from the ads that run on that particular stories page than it is to get nothing because you try to herd your traffic.
I'm going to note with amusement that rather than linking to the original opinion slashdot linked to a blog talking about the opinion. So even if you're the rare /.er who read TFA, unless you clicked though to the primary source the judge never got your pageview (his site isn't ad supported so he isn't impacted financially.) What's more the blog post is licensed under CC, and techcrunch and /. are both making money reporting their opinions on the judges opinion.
Fair trade doesn't require the absence of trade defects/surpluses. But I agree the currency manipulation is not in the spirit of free trade.
agree except this "more efficiently than we can," should read "more cheaply than we can."
There is plenty of room for debate how an influx of cheap foreign goods impacts an economy which is composed of ~60% consumer spending.
Read it again:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...
It offers no protection to be secure against reasonable searches
they're granted substantial authority under the in loco parentis doctrine. Minors have never enjoyed the full protection of the constitution.
Souter's saying that no matter how much evidence you have it's never reasonable to strip search a 13 year old if you're only looking for ibuprofen (or something similarly benign.)
He's leaving the door open for possible future strip searches of 13 year olds if they're looking for something genuinely dangerous - but you'd still have to meet at least the reasonable suspicion, if not the probable cause threshold. Presumably if you meet these thresholds the search isn't unreasonable.
This actually reinforces the 4th amendment, because it clarifies that not every search is reasonable just because you have a reasonable suspicion that a crime was committed - the severity of the crime also factors into reasonableness.
Also Thomas is an asshat.
The largest tree in the world is estimated to weigh 2100 metric tons, these "trees" would remove that much carbon in about 6 years.
Not saying the storage problems aren't significant, this purpose built machine takes carbon out a lot faster than growing trees, chopping them down, and burying them.
look at that link again. It fluctuates vs. the CPI (consumer price index). That's a measure of purchasing power. In other words, it's directly proportional to the gold to bread ratio.
The only thing remotely historic in these sections of cities like Detroit are shuttered factories. We're not talking about razing city centers, these are "near suburbs."
It depends where you are. In places like SE MI you're bulldozing one type of ghetto and restoring another. Most of this housing is cheep single family homes that were built between 1940 and 1960 within the city limits, and close to a factory. Because of white flight and factory closings there are a lot of those areas that are almost completely empty.
You know that Lowes commercial about the house the GI bought after WWII? Those are the properties they're looking to raze.
In spite of what HR related websites want you to believe it's not illegal to ask any of those questions. What it is, is a Real Bad Idea (TM). It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of a protected class, but it isn't illegal to ask per se. If you're foolish enough to ask one of those questions, it does leave you wide open to a law suit - but that suit is going to allege you discriminated based on that information, and they're most likely going to need some demographic information from your company to support their charges if you don't roll over and settle right away.
An example, a candidate named Hans Richtenfliegen interviews with Wienerhoffman schnitzel factory. The interviewer foolishly asks Hans, who happens to be German, if he still has any relatives back in the old country. Hans, after being turned down for the job, files a complaint with his local labor board alleging he was turned down based on his national origin. After some preliminary investigations, it turns out that 50% of upper management is of Germanic dissent, and the candidate who got the job, Jorg Waldenschwimmen, was also of German dissent. What's more, the overall demographics of the company closely conform to the demographics of the surrounding area. Hans is going to have a hard time making his case that something illegal took place based on that question. In other words, there's no such thing as an illegal question. But it's still a bad idea to tempt fate.
for political appointments asking for online hangouts might be due diligence, but for a normal career type job, it's over the line. (asking for passwords is just asinine no matter what the situation.)
nope, but sometimes you can squeeze a little extra out of the waste stream - so it's not a bad idea to look.
You're on crack. In just the last 100 years the value of gold has fluctuated ~700%