The limited liability intention is essentially that the investors that pool capital into an corporation aren't risking capital that isn't invested in the corporation. The notition that they can only lose at lost all what they put in is pretty reasonable on the face of it and a principle worth preserving.
But its also been abused, and it needs re-working. The main solution; and you raised it in your post is that the top level executives aren't charged criminal for their actions. And the shares in the company belonging to C level execs should be fair game for seizure. Their options cancelled. There salaries and capital gains and dividends subject to garnishment, etc.
Corporations don't break the law. People do. Go after the people. The corporations should be liable for the financial harm they cause. But individuals need to be punished as part of the justice system.
There is nothing about the limited liability nature of the corporation that should prevent Cxx level executives being hauled up on criminal charges. That just shields investors personal assets from forfeiture to pay the corporations debts.
C level execs on down the line should be jailed, regularly, for their actions. That would clean corporations up pretty fast.
The other part to fixing corporations is getting rid of 'too-big-to-fail'; and cap the size of a company. Agressively force it to split into smaller companies the minute it reaches particular fraction of the GDP or something.
Corporations exist to reduce individual livability & allow a group of people to act as one under the law.
More the latter than the former.
Jeff's construction simply would never have the resources to put together a mega project like a large bridge, skyscraper, or dam, or what if Jeff died midway through the project and the company was dissolved and diluted through his heirs? And is anybody on the hook.. since the construction contract was with Jeff personally and he's dead now...
A corporation exists primarily to allow people to pool capital and provide 'governance' for it that can survive an individual.
I was speaking in general to the notion that counting commits means anything; I don't know anything about her. And I certainly wouldn't get all pedantic about the term 'developer' as used in an article on the web; where everyone from a system architect, to the person who edits the content on the company intranet via CMS is routinely called a 'developer'.
"When using Tor with Tails in its default configuration, anyone who can observe the traffic of your Internet connection (for example your Internet Service Provider and perhaps your government and law enforcement agencies) can know that you are using Tor."
"This may be an issue if you are in a country where the following applies: 1. Using Tor is blocked by censorship [...] 2. Using Tor is dangerous or considered suspicious: in this case starting Tails in its default configuration might get you into serious trouble. [...]
"Tor bridges, also called Tor bridge relays, are alternative entry points to the Tor network that are not all listed publicly. Using a bridge makes it harder, but not impossible, for your Internet Service Provider to know that you are using Tor."
I can't speak to whether she is a core developer or not, nor how relevant she might be to the tor project.
But the idea of counting code commits is idiotic -- next you'll be telling us the building architect and construction foreman aren't some of the best people to point at the weakest spots in a building project because you checked how many nails, welds, and bolts they were responsible for and found the number close to zero.
But that's beside the point. I never claimed it was a lot of people. Only that the people who were waterboarded were waterboarded repeatedly: dozens, even hundreds of times.
Nobody drowned.
Drowning is defined as respiratory impairment from being in or under a liquid. Drowning doesn't need to result in death.
Withstanding waterboarding is part of Seal Training.
Your point? Even SEALs have come out and said that its torture.
And they've also pointed out that their training was in very controlled circumstances, and that they *knew* they would be ok, how long it would be, when it would be over, and that they'd be taken care of. And that comparing it to what goes on in a CIA secret prison is ridiculous.
What if I told you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, then you hauled off and killed her in a fit of rage? How is that going to make the world a better place?
What I didn't tell you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, shortly after you get herpes and aids, because the mailman had it, then your wife had it, now you have it. Then you haul off and kill her in a fit of rage? And then live out the rest of your life with a pair of incurable STDs.
How exactly is that world the better place?
There really isn't a winning move.
And to be clear, I'm talking about strangers here. Friends and family do have more of a leg to stand on when doing things that affect others in their lives, but perfect strangers spying on others in order to expose them can go get right bent.
Ok, that's fair. I'm not sure where you draw the line; neighbors? coworkers? acquaintences? I can sort of see your point about total stranger busybodies -- but for me to know your wife is banging the mailman -- I probably know you at least casually. Enough to know who you are, who she is, your relationship, who the mailman is... otherwise maybe the mailman's her boyfriend and you and her are just brother and sister living in the same house...
Waterboarding (pouring water over the enemy combatant's face) and hooding (putting a bag over their head so they can't see) are bad.
Are you serious? Waterboarding someone is a drowning technique. Waterboarding is 'pouring water over their face' the way tearing someone's finger nails out is a 'rough manicure'. They were drowning people several times a day for days or weeks on end. You need to get your head straight on this.
"In other words, raping these civilians hundreds of times each."
Wait that sounds pretty unpleasant. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write it as "In other words, they potentially got some unwanted sexual attention"?/sarcasm
Systematically raping thousands of girls, many of them hundreds of times each, is a completely different level of horrible.
Yes, absolutely, but really its only different because of the scale. We only waterboarded (hopefully) a small number of people (possibly dozens) of times. Not hundreds or thousands. But seriously you can't claim the moral high ground over a criminal who raped his victims repeatedly when you drowned and resuscitated your own victims over and over again. The ONLY thing that made us better was the scale was pretty small by comparison.
I'm not even sure which torture I'd call more inhuman -- held down and raped by soldiers repeatedly vs held down and drowned repeatedly... to hear the waterboarding victims talk; about the panic attacks, nightmares they live with now, the terror and the pain they felt... they might well have opted for the rape instead. Maybe it doesn't even make sense to try to hold one or the other as worse.
Beating nightmare in 1, 2, TNT and Plutonia without save scumming every 5 seconds.
My 'self imposed' rule was i would save at the beginning the level after arriving from the previous level. No saving during the level, thus all reloading returned me to the beginning of the level.
I have incidentally beaten ep1 and ep2 without ever reloading. But I've never beaten ep3, ep4 "Thy Flesh Consumed"; or Doom II without reloading to the start of at least some of the levels on "Ultraviolence".
I haven't played TNT or Plutonia... although I do see I have them on steam. (as "Final Doom").. I really should play those through.:)
I've only beaten most of ep1 and part of ep2 on nightmare using this rule; and honestly just didn't enjoy nightmare mode enough to bother as Nightmare is more about speed running, avoiding getting trapped, and leading/losing the hordes (especially vs non-humanoid opponents) than it is about killing everything that moves. And I prefer to kill everything that moves when I play doom.
Summon requires you to go through a series of processes which are not likely to be done by accident.
What processes? It looks like put it in park (which it would be in) and bump a button twice. That seemed sufficient from the video to activate it.
You are also required to keep the vehicle in direct line of sight while using summon and you
And the car knows its within LOS how? If the feature were accidentally activated and he walked away... how is he supposed to know its activated?
Also the double push method for summon starts really soon after you get out of the car, so his story of standing there just doesn't add up.
I don't know about you, but when I get out of a car, I often shut the door behind me without even looking back. (And I've seen people walk away from cars that werent properly braked and roll into the car in front of them or bump up into the curve as the owner walks away. It adds up just fine.
And the Tesla is nearly silent. In a normal universe with other traffic/road noise, his sell phone going off, and everything else... I could absolutely see it happening.
First, you must calculate how much bandwidth they used at times that you weren't expecting it to be using bandwidth. Be precise. Its likely in the low MB.
Next, look at your recent phone bills, and document your actual overages. (If you weren't actually over, what are you suing for?)
And calculate (show your work) what portion of that overage is attributable to the app running when it wasn't supposed to be. Hope you didn't have a 2GB overage streaming movies because the 2MB contribution of the app to your overage is then only about 1% the 20$ you spent on overages. (or 20 cents)
Next, document what steps you took to minimize the harm. (If you've had data cap overages for the last 3 years and you are only doing something about it now, the judge will disallow most of your claim as you have an obligation to minimize harm. So you'll need to show that you took reasonable steps to monitor and control your data use and manage overages.)
Finally, file your lawsuit; attend the hearing; and then wait for your check for $2.27 in data overages that the court is likely to allow as directly attributable harm from the app for data use.
The vehicle logs confirm that the automatic Summon feature was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation. The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display.
At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request.
Approximately five minutes, sixteen seconds after Summon activated, the vehicle's driver's-side front door was opened again.
In short, according to the log, the driver manually activated the feature, failed to cancel it, then got out of the car and left, and 3 seconds later the car started moving. The driver came back 5 minutes later.
So the log is of questionable value. Nobody seems to be disputing that the car was driving itself at the time of the accident. Is it possible the feature was activated accidently? Is it possible the feature was activated spontaneously? (I mean, I had a car once where the radio would come on spontaneously when I turned the ignition on or off sometimes; due to an electrical gremlin somewhere.) All the log does is essentially record that the activate feature was received it doesn't validate how the signal was generated or whether it was generated purposefully.
Does it even matter? On the one hand if we presume the activation feature is faulty Tesla is clearly liable. On the other hand even if we assume the driver accidentally (or even purposefully activated the feature); the car STILL drove itself into a parked trailer.
And if its *possible* for the driver to activate the feature (accidently or not), then get out of the car and walk away, and for the car to THEN start moving on it own... then the feature is defective by design. IMO.
If I sell you ammo that is perfect for hunting deer and then you shoot a person do you get to argue that "but you told me it was good at deer not people" as a way out?
That analogy really doesn't fit at all.
If I sold you an automatic sentry gun (a la aliens) and claimed it would shoot anything that moved but that it wouldn't shoot people. And then it riddled a man in a wheelchair because... i dunno... wheels aren't people?
So what should be the outcome then
That was precisely the question I asked in my OP.
Whether the guy or Tesla or his insurance company pick up the repair on this car is almost beside the point.
The bigger question is whether this feature is ready for the public. IF it can't detect an honest to goodness parked vehicle in front of it, then its not ready for the public; even if that vehicle is a bit unusual -- its not THAT unusual.
And a disclaimer that it detects "most vehicles and works as expected except when it doesn't" doesn't absolve Tesla of responsibility. It didn't hit something hanging from a ceiling. It hit a parked vehicle in front of it.
And if the feature can be activated remotely, then Tesla should expect customers to operate it remotely; the car is driving itself; and Tesla should be on the hook for the accident... in my opinion.
But we can't be passing liability to Tesla because the guy has no critical reasoning skills.
I don't dispute the guy was a bonehead.
Tesla sold a car self-driving/self-parking car function that couldn't detect a vehicle in front of it in broad daylight to the public world of boneheads. I'd say Tesla lacked some critical reasoning skills too.
So if that is the case then it is pretty close to what Tesla says the Summon system won't detect.
Yup. I noted that.
Tesla says the car won't see things that are hanging from a roof and this setup is pretty close to that.
You are thinking like an engineer / software programmer and you are considering the problem with respect to your knowledge of where the sensors are and how they work.
A normal human being is not going to equate "a parked trailer on the ground" as being the same problem space as "things hanging from a roof".
It does seem pretty unlikely the owner would have done this on purpose. And even if he had activated summon mode, it still doesn't reflect well on the car that it drove itself into a trailer.
Some sort of spurious activation of the feature seems plausible. But even deliberate activation doesn't excuse the car having an accident.
Having to mess with wusa and kb numbers to keep Windows 10 off your box is flat out disgusting.
Yeah, you don't have to that. Not reserving your copy or whatever its called is sufficient to keep it sitting there idly forevor. It doesn't force windows 10 itself on you.
I do agree the GWX program itself was too difficult to silence.
I bet they were afraid of a lawsuit or something, frankly
You'd have thought that would have come up when the feature was proposed in beta and the negative press started ramping up.
The correct use of "telemetry" for me and many others is "never". The fact that Microsoft makes this difficult is ludicrous.
I completely agree. Although telemetry blockers have stepped in to fill the gap. But I completely agree you shouldn't have to use a 3rd party tool for this.
Wusa uninstalling ludicrous kb numbers and grabbing scripts from social media to block IPs to run securely is dystopian.
There are one-click install telemetry blocking products now. And given telemetry has backported telemetry to 7 and 8; there is no difference between the 3 oses in this regard as far as im concerned. 7 is no better than 10; so there is no reason to stay on 7 and block telemetry vs upgrading to 10 and blocking telemetry.
What's delusional
That windows 10 was forced on you. It wasn't (see other post). That windows 10 home was replacing 7 pro... which you've agreed was an error on your part.
I'm with you on the telemetry. I think its truly bizarre that microsoft didn't just give the vocal minority an off switch. It makes no sense.
The messages use a variety of misleading text. For example, my wife was tricked into upgrading to Windows10 because after clicking "no thanks" a certain number of times, it eventually asked her "do you want to upgrade to Windows 10 now, or later?"
Nope. Your wife or someone else WAY back comitted to doing the upgrade. They clicked, "yes I want to install the upgrade when its available; reserve it now and let me know when its ready" or something along those lines.
THAT was the opt-in or opt-out.
Everything AFTER that, all those "Do you want to complete your upgrade to windows 10 now?" boxes your wife declined for the last few months... it wasn't asking permission to install wiindows 10. It was asking to COMPLETE the installation of windows 10 that had ALREADY been requested.
And yeah, like any other windows update that microsoft downloads and applies and needs a reboot; it prompts you to reboot, and if you decline long enough; eventually it forces the issue. "Complete and reboot now, or in a couple hours"
Its like Adobe Reader asking to install an update. When you click 'go' it does its thing. When its finished and prompts for a reboot... "now or later" are your only options. The update has already been committed. You can't look at that 'nor or later" and lament that Adobe is forcing itself on you... "Now or Later" and cry evil. Well... I guess you can do just that, because you are doing just that.
But its not really accurate.
You or someone did agree to the upgrade at the very beginning. And everything after that was just a question of when you wanted to finalize the installation. Same as any other windows update you've ever done.
That said I agree with you its clumsy, and the way microsoft hooked it up to the windows update system, which treats it much the same as any other update that needs a reboot was poorly thought out. I agree that it really should give you a final opt-out / cancel just before it finalizes. But it didn't force you into the install; its just forcing you to finish the install you already started. At least it offers an easy rollback.
Well, Windows 10 has been pretty clever about sneaking into machines and installing itself,
It asked to upgrade and people said yes; and then worst case the upgrade happened weeks or months later instead of immediately so that they forgot. I concede its a bit malware-ish since people click without reading. But in the end its the same as adobe reader "sneaking" the adobe reader DC upgrade onto machines with Adobe Reader X.
in the process downgrading your "pro" 7 install to a "home" one.
I've never heard of that ever happening, and a quick google didn't bring up a storm of outrage either. So... cite?
So some victims of Windows 10 didn't consent, they were tricked.
Even Adobe Reader doesn't have a built in "I changed my mind and want to go back feature." Windows 10 does.
This means that someone must obviously care what people are doing on computers, because there is such a huge pressure to make that happen.
Telemetry properly used; is what enabled them to determine empirically that wifi sense was not being used much and wasn't worth keeping around.
There is LOTS to complain about microsoft telemetry including the lack of an option to easily turn it off; but telemetry has legitimate positive uses too.
You however have gone off the deep end into delusional territory.
If you click or select the minimized credits area, it restores them to full screen. Works with most netflix UIs I've run into... but if you are using the app built into your smart TV or something... all bets are off:)
Here's an example. Irish corporate tax rate is around 10% and in the US it's about 35% [...]
That's a good start... but its incomplete:
USA Corp earns $1,000 in profit in sales in the US, they pay $350 to the IRS and keep $650 as profits to either reinvest in the company by building new capabilities in the US, or distribute as a dividend to shareholders etc
Well you forgot about the part where technically the Corp in Ireland owns the company Trademark and charges USA corp $500 to license it. So USA corp only earns $500 in profits locally. They pay $175 in taxes and keep the balance to reinvest locally etc.
Now USA Corp also earns $1,000 profit in Ireland.
Well $500 in Ireland. The other $500 was actually earned in the USA but was transferred to Ireland in the aforementioned licensing fees. So only $500 was in Ireland... well actually no... $495 of that was actually earned in Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc, and similarly transferred to Ireland.
Only $5 was earned from activities actually in Ireland though, and yes they paid their fair $0.50 share for that.
But the other $99.50 in taxes corp in ireland was all basically a tax dodge of much higher taxes in many other countries.
So how does USA corp get the money into the USA from Ireland, since if it transfers it, it pays taxes!!? Well.. it could borrow it from Irish corp? Then its just a loan; the money comes into the US, and a debt to ireland is added to the balance sheet. But since they're really borrowing it from themselves,... and that's just an example of one of the games they can play.
They don't need to bank due to aerodynamics moving through air, but they may need to bank for the relative comfort of occupants.
Ok... I'm grasping at straws... I admit but still, I do think at least some 'banking' is plausible to make vector changes more comfortable; you'd be pushed 'down' into the flight seat during a turn instead of laterally out the side of the seat.
Just wondering if the OP claims all the deductions they're eligible for or not.
What difference does it make?
Suggesting the OP shouldn't take all his deductions if he thinks corporations shouldn't take all their deductions would only make an iota of sense if he wasn't already paying a vastly higher percentage of his income then the corps were complaining about.
ie...fairness has nothing to with whether or not one takes all their deductions or not; it has to do with the fact the guy making 100k is paying 20+% in tax even after taking all their deductions, while the corporation making 2 billion is paying 0.8% in tax.
Even if they are both taking all their deductions it's still not remotely equitable.
That doesn't refute my argument at all. Just as with my Putin example... everyone in the world knows who Putin in, but if there's also boat by that name somewhere practically nobody knows anything about it.
Meanwhile there are 761,000 results in google that are about Boaty McBoatface, the boat itself, and that celebrity was generated and the boat wasn't even named yet.
"David Attenborough remains vastly more well-known than McBoatface ever was"
1) And its thinking like this that got me moded flamebait above.
But this really has little to do with *him* as a person; its merely a boat named after him. And nobody knows anything about the BOAT "David Attenborough".
It'd be like naming a boat Putin; everybody on the planet knows who Putin is... but they don't know anything about the boat.
*Everyone's* heard of the *boat* that might have been called "Boaty McBoatface".
2) I think you overestimate Attenborough's fame. He's apparently a national treasure in Britain; but no I'd never heard of him, and while that sets me up for the obvious "entire educated English speaking world knows who he is therefor I'm not educated" riposte, I disagree; he's not nearly as well known as you seem to think.
Slashdot Mirror
The limited liability intention is essentially that the investors that pool capital into an corporation aren't risking capital that isn't invested in the corporation. The notition that they can only lose at lost all what they put in is pretty reasonable on the face of it and a principle worth preserving.
But its also been abused, and it needs re-working. The main solution; and you raised it in your post is that the top level executives aren't charged criminal for their actions. And the shares in the company belonging to C level execs should be fair game for seizure. Their options cancelled. There salaries and capital gains and dividends subject to garnishment, etc.
Corporations don't break the law. People do. Go after the people. The corporations should be liable for the financial harm they cause. But individuals need to be punished as part of the justice system.
There is nothing about the limited liability nature of the corporation that should prevent Cxx level executives being hauled up on criminal charges. That just shields investors personal assets from forfeiture to pay the corporations debts.
C level execs on down the line should be jailed, regularly, for their actions. That would clean corporations up pretty fast.
The other part to fixing corporations is getting rid of 'too-big-to-fail'; and cap the size of a company. Agressively force it to split into smaller companies the minute it reaches particular fraction of the GDP or something.
Corporations exist to reduce individual livability & allow a group of people to act as one under the law.
More the latter than the former.
Jeff's construction simply would never have the resources to put together a mega project like a large bridge, skyscraper, or dam, or what if Jeff died midway through the project and the company was dissolved and diluted through his heirs? And is anybody on the hook.. since the construction contract was with Jeff personally and he's dead now...
A corporation exists primarily to allow people to pool capital and provide 'governance' for it that can survive an individual.
Everything else is 2ndary.
I was speaking in general to the notion that counting commits means anything; I don't know anything about her. And I certainly wouldn't get all pedantic about the term 'developer' as used in an article on the web; where everyone from a system architect, to the person who edits the content on the company intranet via CMS is routinely called a 'developer'.
But fine, you've made me look... happy?
https://www.torproject.org/abo...
"Isis: Lead maintainer and developer on BridgeDB. Used to work on OONI."
So where does that take us:
https://bridges.torproject.org...
"When using Tor with Tails in its default configuration, anyone who can observe the traffic of your Internet connection (for example your Internet Service Provider and perhaps your government and law enforcement agencies) can know that you are using Tor."
"This may be an issue if you are in a country where the following applies:
1. Using Tor is blocked by censorship [...]
2. Using Tor is dangerous or considered suspicious: in this case starting Tails in its default configuration might get you into serious trouble. [...]
"Tor bridges, also called Tor bridge relays, are alternative entry points to the Tor network that are not all listed publicly. Using a bridge makes it harder, but not impossible, for your Internet Service Provider to know that you are using Tor."
isislovecruft #1: 1,619 commits, 130,599++ / 82,789--
https://github.com/isislovecru...
and
https://ooni.torproject.org/
"A free software, global observation network for detecting censorship, surveillance and traffic manipulation on the internet"
isislovecruft #2 with 271 commits, 31,590++, 23,581 --
https://github.com/TheTorProje...
She removed ONE line of code (a double free). That is it. That isn't a core developer.
That burning feeling in your cheeks... that's the shame. Assuming you are a decent human.
I can't speak to whether she is a core developer or not, nor how relevant she might be to the tor project.
But the idea of counting code commits is idiotic -- next you'll be telling us the building architect and construction foreman aren't some of the best people to point at the weakest spots in a building project because you checked how many nails, welds, and bolts they were responsible for and found the number close to zero.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/oct/16/cia-torture-water-dousing-waterboard-like-technique
http://www.theguardian.com/law...
But that's beside the point. I never claimed it was a lot of people. Only that the people who were waterboarded were waterboarded repeatedly: dozens, even hundreds of times.
Nobody drowned.
Drowning is defined as respiratory impairment from being in or under a liquid. Drowning doesn't need to result in death.
Withstanding waterboarding is part of Seal Training.
Your point? Even SEALs have come out and said that its torture.
And they've also pointed out that their training was in very controlled circumstances, and that they *knew* they would be ok, how long it would be, when it would be over, and that they'd be taken care of. And that comparing it to what goes on in a CIA secret prison is ridiculous.
What if I told you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, then you hauled off and killed her in a fit of rage? How is that going to make the world a better place?
What I didn't tell you I saw your wife banging the mailman last week, shortly after you get herpes and aids, because the mailman had it, then your wife had it, now you have it. Then you haul off and kill her in a fit of rage? And then live out the rest of your life with a pair of incurable STDs.
How exactly is that world the better place?
There really isn't a winning move.
And to be clear, I'm talking about strangers here. Friends and family do have more of a leg to stand on when doing things that affect others in their lives, but perfect strangers spying on others in order to expose them can go get right bent.
Ok, that's fair. I'm not sure where you draw the line; neighbors? coworkers? acquaintences? I can sort of see your point about total stranger busybodies -- but for me to know your wife is banging the mailman -- I probably know you at least casually. Enough to know who you are, who she is, your relationship, who the mailman is... otherwise maybe the mailman's her boyfriend and you and her are just brother and sister living in the same house...
Waterboarding (pouring water over the enemy combatant's face) and hooding (putting a bag over their head so they can't see) are bad.
Are you serious? Waterboarding someone is a drowning technique. Waterboarding is 'pouring water over their face' the way tearing someone's finger nails out is a 'rough manicure'. They were drowning people several times a day for days or weeks on end. You need to get your head straight on this.
"In other words, raping these civilians hundreds of times each."
Wait that sounds pretty unpleasant. Are you sure you wouldn't prefer to write it as "In other words, they potentially got some unwanted sexual attention"? /sarcasm
Systematically raping thousands of girls, many of them hundreds of times each, is a completely different level of horrible.
Yes, absolutely, but really its only different because of the scale. We only waterboarded (hopefully) a small number of people (possibly dozens) of times. Not hundreds or thousands. But seriously you can't claim the moral high ground over a criminal who raped his victims repeatedly when you drowned and resuscitated your own victims over and over again. The ONLY thing that made us better was the scale was pretty small by comparison.
I'm not even sure which torture I'd call more inhuman -- held down and raped by soldiers repeatedly vs held down and drowned repeatedly... to hear the waterboarding victims talk; about the panic attacks, nightmares they live with now, the terror and the pain they felt... they might well have opted for the rape instead. Maybe it doesn't even make sense to try to hold one or the other as worse.
Their customers have no idea that they can switch, and microsoft doesn't expect them to figure it out anytime soon.
A lot of customers can't switch; most of them can't switch even.
Whether its because they rely on solidworks, or quickbooks or some line-of-business or point-of-sale tool tons of businesses can't switch.
Microsoft is apparently turning the screws Home edition was always garbage. Now Pro edition is fast becoming the new Home edition.
And the only edition worth using will be enterprise edition. But that's going to cost you.
Beating nightmare in 1, 2, TNT and Plutonia without save scumming every 5 seconds.
My 'self imposed' rule was i would save at the beginning the level after arriving from the previous level. No saving during the level, thus all reloading returned me to the beginning of the level.
I have incidentally beaten ep1 and ep2 without ever reloading. But I've never beaten ep3, ep4 "Thy Flesh Consumed"; or Doom II without reloading to the start of at least some of the levels on "Ultraviolence".
I haven't played TNT or Plutonia... although I do see I have them on steam. (as "Final Doom").. I really should play those through. :)
I've only beaten most of ep1 and part of ep2 on nightmare using this rule; and honestly just didn't enjoy nightmare mode enough to bother as Nightmare is more about speed running, avoiding getting trapped, and leading/losing the hordes (especially vs non-humanoid opponents) than it is about killing everything that moves. And I prefer to kill everything that moves when I play doom.
Summon requires you to go through a series of processes which are not likely to be done by accident.
What processes? It looks like put it in park (which it would be in) and bump a button twice. That seemed sufficient from the video to activate it.
You are also required to keep the vehicle in direct line of sight while using summon and you
And the car knows its within LOS how? If the feature were accidentally activated and he walked away... how is he supposed to know its activated?
Also the double push method for summon starts really soon after you get out of the car, so his story of standing there just doesn't add up.
I don't know about you, but when I get out of a car, I often shut the door behind me without even looking back. (And I've seen people walk away from cars that werent properly braked and roll into the car in front of them or bump up into the curve as the owner walks away. It adds up just fine.
And the Tesla is nearly silent. In a normal universe with other traffic/road noise, his sell phone going off, and everything else... I could absolutely see it happening.
You sure can.
First, you must calculate how much bandwidth they used at times that you weren't expecting it to be using bandwidth. Be precise. Its likely in the low MB.
Next, look at your recent phone bills, and document your actual overages. (If you weren't actually over, what are you suing for?)
And calculate (show your work) what portion of that overage is attributable to the app running when it wasn't supposed to be. Hope you didn't have a 2GB overage streaming movies because the 2MB contribution of the app to your overage is then only about 1% the 20$ you spent on overages. (or 20 cents)
Next, document what steps you took to minimize the harm. (If you've had data cap overages for the last 3 years and you are only doing something about it now, the judge will disallow most of your claim as you have an obligation to minimize harm. So you'll need to show that you took reasonable steps to monitor and control your data use and manage overages.)
Finally, file your lawsuit; attend the hearing; and then wait for your check for $2.27 in data overages that the court is likely to allow as directly attributable harm from the app for data use.
Assuming it allows anything at all.
"Also, isn't there a log?"
Yes.
The vehicle logs confirm that the automatic Summon feature was initiated by a double-press of the gear selector stalk button, shifting from Drive to Park and requesting Summon activation. The driver was alerted of the Summon activation with an audible chime and a pop-up message on the center touchscreen display.
At this time, the driver had the opportunity to cancel the action by pressing CANCEL on the center touchscreen display; however, the CANCEL button was not clicked by the driver. In the next second, the brake pedal was released and two seconds later, the driver exited the vehicle. Three seconds after that, the driver's door was closed, and another three seconds later, Summon activated pursuant to the driver's double-press activation request.
Approximately five minutes, sixteen seconds after Summon activated, the vehicle's driver's-side front door was opened again.
In short, according to the log, the driver manually activated the feature, failed to cancel it, then got out of the car and left, and 3 seconds later the car started moving. The driver came back 5 minutes later.
So the log is of questionable value. Nobody seems to be disputing that the car was driving itself at the time of the accident. Is it possible the feature was activated accidently? Is it possible the feature was activated spontaneously? (I mean, I had a car once where the radio would come on spontaneously when I turned the ignition on or off sometimes; due to an electrical gremlin somewhere.) All the log does is essentially record that the activate feature was received it doesn't validate how the signal was generated or whether it was generated purposefully.
Does it even matter? On the one hand if we presume the activation feature is faulty Tesla is clearly liable. On the other hand even if we assume the driver accidentally (or even purposefully activated the feature); the car STILL drove itself into a parked trailer.
And if its *possible* for the driver to activate the feature (accidently or not), then get out of the car and walk away, and for the car to THEN start moving on it own... then the feature is defective by design. IMO.
If I sell you ammo that is perfect for hunting deer and then you shoot a person do you get to argue that "but you told me it was good at deer not people" as a way out?
That analogy really doesn't fit at all.
If I sold you an automatic sentry gun (a la aliens) and claimed it would shoot anything that moved but that it wouldn't shoot people. And then it riddled a man in a wheelchair because... i dunno... wheels aren't people?
So what should be the outcome then
That was precisely the question I asked in my OP.
Whether the guy or Tesla or his insurance company pick up the repair on this car is almost beside the point.
The bigger question is whether this feature is ready for the public. IF it can't detect an honest to goodness parked vehicle in front of it, then its not ready for the public; even if that vehicle is a bit unusual -- its not THAT unusual.
And a disclaimer that it detects "most vehicles and works as expected except when it doesn't" doesn't absolve Tesla of responsibility. It didn't hit something hanging from a ceiling. It hit a parked vehicle in front of it.
And if the feature can be activated remotely, then Tesla should expect customers to operate it remotely; the car is driving itself; and Tesla should be on the hook for the accident... in my opinion.
But we can't be passing liability to Tesla because the guy has no critical reasoning skills.
I don't dispute the guy was a bonehead.
Tesla sold a car self-driving/self-parking car function that couldn't detect a vehicle in front of it in broad daylight to the public world of boneheads. I'd say Tesla lacked some critical reasoning skills too.
So if that is the case then it is pretty close to what Tesla says the Summon system won't detect.
Yup. I noted that.
Tesla says the car won't see things that are hanging from a roof and this setup is pretty close to that.
You are thinking like an engineer / software programmer and you are considering the problem with respect to your knowledge of where the sensors are and how they work.
A normal human being is not going to equate "a parked trailer on the ground" as being the same problem space as "things hanging from a roof".
the fact that Tesla (claim to) have logs showing exactly what did happen should be ignored
I'm not suggesting we ignore Tesla's claim that the car was in summon mode (a mode where it drives itself) and then it promptly had a car accident.
It does seem pretty unlikely the owner would have done this on purpose. And even if he had activated summon mode, it still doesn't reflect well on the car that it drove itself into a trailer.
Some sort of spurious activation of the feature seems plausible. But even deliberate activation doesn't excuse the car having an accident.
Who is liable and who SHOULD be liable?
Having to mess with wusa and kb numbers to keep Windows 10 off your box is flat out disgusting.
Yeah, you don't have to that. Not reserving your copy or whatever its called is sufficient to keep it sitting there idly forevor. It doesn't force windows 10 itself on you.
I do agree the GWX program itself was too difficult to silence.
I bet they were afraid of a lawsuit or something, frankly
You'd have thought that would have come up when the feature was proposed in beta and the negative press started ramping up.
The correct use of "telemetry" for me and many others is "never". The fact that Microsoft makes this difficult is ludicrous.
I completely agree. Although telemetry blockers have stepped in to fill the gap. But I completely agree you shouldn't have to use a 3rd party tool for this.
Wusa uninstalling ludicrous kb numbers and grabbing scripts from social media to block IPs to run securely is dystopian.
There are one-click install telemetry blocking products now. And given telemetry has backported telemetry to 7 and 8; there is no difference between the 3 oses in this regard as far as im concerned. 7 is no better than 10; so there is no reason to stay on 7 and block telemetry vs upgrading to 10 and blocking telemetry.
What's delusional
That windows 10 was forced on you. It wasn't (see other post). That windows 10 home was replacing 7 pro... which you've agreed was an error on your part.
I'm with you on the telemetry. I think its truly bizarre that microsoft didn't just give the vocal minority an off switch. It makes no sense.
The messages use a variety of misleading text. For example, my wife was tricked into upgrading to Windows10 because after clicking "no thanks" a certain number of times, it eventually asked her "do you want to upgrade to Windows 10 now, or later?"
Nope. Your wife or someone else WAY back comitted to doing the upgrade. They clicked, "yes I want to install the upgrade when its available; reserve it now and let me know when its ready" or something along those lines.
THAT was the opt-in or opt-out.
Everything AFTER that, all those "Do you want to complete your upgrade to windows 10 now?" boxes your wife declined for the last few months ... it wasn't asking permission to install wiindows 10. It was asking to COMPLETE the installation of windows 10 that had ALREADY been requested.
And yeah, like any other windows update that microsoft downloads and applies and needs a reboot; it prompts you to reboot, and if you decline long enough; eventually it forces the issue. "Complete and reboot now, or in a couple hours"
Its like Adobe Reader asking to install an update. When you click 'go' it does its thing. When its finished and prompts for a reboot ... "now or later" are your only options. The update has already been committed. You can't look at that 'nor or later" and lament that Adobe is forcing itself on you... "Now or Later" and cry evil. Well... I guess you can do just that, because you are doing just that.
But its not really accurate.
You or someone did agree to the upgrade at the very beginning. And everything after that was just a question of when you wanted to finalize the installation. Same as any other windows update you've ever done.
That said I agree with you its clumsy, and the way microsoft hooked it up to the windows update system, which treats it much the same as any other update that needs a reboot was poorly thought out. I agree that it really should give you a final opt-out / cancel just before it finalizes. But it didn't force you into the install; its just forcing you to finish the install you already started. At least it offers an easy rollback.
Well, Windows 10 has been pretty clever about sneaking into machines and installing itself,
It asked to upgrade and people said yes; and then worst case the upgrade happened weeks or months later instead of immediately so that they forgot. I concede its a bit malware-ish since people click without reading. But in the end its the same as adobe reader "sneaking" the adobe reader DC upgrade onto machines with Adobe Reader X.
in the process downgrading your "pro" 7 install to a "home" one.
I've never heard of that ever happening, and a quick google didn't bring up a storm of outrage either. So... cite?
So some victims of Windows 10 didn't consent, they were tricked.
http://winsupersite.com/window...
Even Adobe Reader doesn't have a built in "I changed my mind and want to go back feature." Windows 10 does.
This means that someone must obviously care what people are doing on computers, because there is such a huge pressure to make that happen.
Telemetry properly used; is what enabled them to determine empirically that wifi sense was not being used much and wasn't worth keeping around.
There is LOTS to complain about microsoft telemetry including the lack of an option to easily turn it off; but telemetry has legitimate positive uses too.
You however have gone off the deep end into delusional territory.
If you click or select the minimized credits area, it restores them to full screen. Works with most netflix UIs I've run into... but if you are using the app built into your smart TV or something... all bets are off :)
Here's an example. Irish corporate tax rate is around 10% and in the US it's about 35% [...]
That's a good start... but its incomplete:
USA Corp earns $1,000 in profit in sales in the US, they pay $350 to the IRS and keep $650 as profits to either reinvest in the company by building new capabilities in the US, or distribute as a dividend to shareholders etc
Well you forgot about the part where technically the Corp in Ireland owns the company Trademark and charges USA corp $500 to license it. So USA corp only earns $500 in profits locally. They pay $175 in taxes and keep the balance to reinvest locally etc.
Now USA Corp also earns $1,000 profit in Ireland.
Well $500 in Ireland. The other $500 was actually earned in the USA but was transferred to Ireland in the aforementioned licensing fees. So only $500 was in Ireland... well actually no ... $495 of that was actually earned in Canada, UK, France, Germany, etc, and similarly transferred to Ireland.
Only $5 was earned from activities actually in Ireland though, and yes they paid their fair $0.50 share for that.
But the other $99.50 in taxes corp in ireland was all basically a tax dodge of much higher taxes in many other countries.
So how does USA corp get the money into the USA from Ireland, since if it transfers it, it pays taxes!!? Well.. it could borrow it from Irish corp? Then its just a loan; the money comes into the US, and a debt to ireland is added to the balance sheet. But since they're really borrowing it from themselves,... and that's just an example of one of the games they can play.
They don't need to bank due to aerodynamics moving through air, but they may need to bank for the relative comfort of occupants.
Ok... I'm grasping at straws... I admit but still, I do think at least some 'banking' is plausible to make vector changes more comfortable; you'd be pushed 'down' into the flight seat during a turn instead of laterally out the side of the seat.
Just wondering if the OP claims all the deductions they're eligible for or not.
What difference does it make?
Suggesting the OP shouldn't take all his deductions if he thinks corporations shouldn't take all their deductions would only make an iota of sense if he wasn't already paying a vastly higher percentage of his income then the corps were complaining about.
ie...fairness has nothing to with whether or not one takes all their deductions or not; it has to do with the fact the guy making 100k is paying 20+% in tax even after taking all their deductions, while the corporation making 2 billion is paying 0.8% in tax.
Even if they are both taking all their deductions it's still not remotely equitable.
That doesn't refute my argument at all. Just as with my Putin example... everyone in the world knows who Putin in, but if there's also boat by that name somewhere practically nobody knows anything about it.
Meanwhile there are 761,000 results in google that are about Boaty McBoatface, the boat itself, and that celebrity was generated and the boat wasn't even named yet.
"David Attenborough remains vastly more well-known than McBoatface ever was"
1) And its thinking like this that got me moded flamebait above.
But this really has little to do with *him* as a person; its merely a boat named after him. And nobody knows anything about the BOAT "David Attenborough".
It'd be like naming a boat Putin; everybody on the planet knows who Putin is... but they don't know anything about the boat.
*Everyone's* heard of the *boat* that might have been called "Boaty McBoatface".
2) I think you overestimate Attenborough's fame. He's apparently a national treasure in Britain; but no I'd never heard of him, and while that sets me up for the obvious "entire educated English speaking world knows who he is therefor I'm not educated" riposte, I disagree; he's not nearly as well known as you seem to think.