Let me use an example. Company A and company B want to sell a device in China. Chinese Gov't official X approves A's request, but not B's on obscure technicalities, like misspellings or coffee stains on a form. B is a USA firm. B is being discriminated against because X doesn't scrutinize A as heavily.
Now if a US trade inspector Y comes to check this out, it would take a long time to study and process. It's hard to objectively verify X is being more lenient on A than B without digging through a lot of documents, many of which may require permission to get copies of. And it may require reverse engineering products.
Rather than have a jillion Y's trying to verify all the details of a jillion products to undo discrimination, a general tariff is easier to issue and verify. The more lopsided the aggregate trade value between countries, the bigger the tariff. We essentially "tax" their staff coming in until they balance their trade.
This is a consequence of one of the best design decisions Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues made. For decades some of the brightest people in the world had been struggling to perfect a distributed hyperinformation system suitable for general everyday use - but no one had succeeded. Then along came the CERN crew, and pulled it off almost immediately. Their secret? Leaving stuff out! [broken links]
And these people managed nuclear power plants? Yikes! I would imagine they'd at least consider a versioning system. If you ask for a page that's no longer relevant, you could at least see the archive menu or have a form pop up to request an archive copy or directions to the new equivalent.
"Just delete it" is too blunt for serious work. Dancing hamsters disappearing without a trace? Who cares. Emergency shut-off valve instructions? That's different.
To be fair, with all the screwy frameworks and API's needed to get PHB-approved eye-candy apps these days, it's hard to know why certain things really work (or don't work). Not all tweaks are logical: Han Solo still bangs the Millennium Falcon in a spot only known by him to get it work. "HanSolo.com says bang panel 7 if the foobulator stops working during high humidity."
A similar thing happened to me. I found a telephone book from 1990 and none of the phone numbers were accurate either.
My parents lived in the same house since the 1970's, and I imagine many others have also. I would expect roughly 20% would still be valid, at least in terms of a relative or descendant answering.
Yes there is. It basically requires "intent" OR "gross negligence". I don't know if the word they used is actually "intent", but it's synonymous, at least as I interpreted it.
Usually it comes down to "intent" to distribute malware or cause harm. It's the magic legal word. In extreme cases "gross negligence" (bigly sloppy) comes into play, but usually carries rather short sentences.
Hillary probably avoided "gross negligence" by not being given proper training by the Department. (The "briefing" was not a full training session; otherwise it would not be called a "briefing".) The issue there seemed to be a combination of "medium" negligence by many staff members, Hillary is just one. Bunches of people should have been at least slapped with a fine in my opinion.
Technically Microsoft may have been accurate. They probably scanned for malware themselves, removing any KNOWN problems, and then announcing they "found it to be clean". Sure, it's probably misleading even if technically accurate, but that's what marketers are paid to do: spin.
Both parties piss bigly and their ideals. Democrats kiss up to crony capitalists (as does GOP) and get sucked into war expansion, and Republicans spend like drunken sailors on the military, DHS, security theater, ill-advised wars, bribing the elderly with Medicare Part D, and let oligopolies/monopolies kill competition merely by being big.
The real problem is that humans suck. Idealism is never reached on a long-term basis. But, ugly compromise is usually better than war.
Okay, they are both slackers about such, agreed, but which party is MORE likely to do something about such? Or is all the talk about how "great" deregulation is from Republicans merely talk?
I see that on just about any "free" software installation and update to get you to install extra "promotionware". Java still does it, last I remember. I suppose they can argue the "extra" product is not being charged for and thus does't fall under such statutes; and the boundary between product and "feature" can also be blurry. Still, it's an annoying practice.
The worse case I ever saw was a confirmation box with a double-negative, something like:
[_] I don't want to not install the ShinyMonkey Toolbar.
Half the users in the org ended up with the goddam ShinyMonkey Toolbar, which conflicted with other apps, causing job security and/or headaches for the help desk.
difficult to enforce contracts...Personal relationships and [connections] are much more important.
This is why I believe tariffs are needed to balance trade because there too many intricate relationships to micromanage by inspectors and lawyers if the US wants to stop discrimination of foreign products and services.
Set a simple tariff to be a percentage of the trade imbalance. Say the tariff is set at 1/5 the imbalance percent. Then if China exports 50% more goods/services to the US than it imports, the tariff would be 10%.
Activate it gradually to avoid shocking the markets. The tariff is not meant to punish them and dampen overall trade, but rather encourage them to balance things out and be more import-driven. Their ingrained habit is to discriminate against foreign products & services.
The old terms are over-simplistic and may not be appropriate for all situations. Whether they believe in big gov't, small gov't, or purple gov't, they are "pro-Caucasian". That's the one thing they have in common; although each group may define it differently. For example, some are for mere separation of "races", saying mixing doesn't work and see the US being "polluted" by outside culture, while others claim Caucasians are genetically superior and therefore deserve to dominate.
Slashdot Mirror
You are making that up. And, it was singular. State Dept. confirmed there was no record she attended the FORMAL class.
DaaaHHHHH! Warn me before yuo post that shti
...and cartoonists & comedians.
Trump has made Constitutional lawyers, fact checkers, and news organizations richer.
They probably realized the near-term alternatives suck, and there is active combat that needs them now.
Let me use an example. Company A and company B want to sell a device in China. Chinese Gov't official X approves A's request, but not B's on obscure technicalities, like misspellings or coffee stains on a form. B is a USA firm. B is being discriminated against because X doesn't scrutinize A as heavily.
Now if a US trade inspector Y comes to check this out, it would take a long time to study and process. It's hard to objectively verify X is being more lenient on A than B without digging through a lot of documents, many of which may require permission to get copies of. And it may require reverse engineering products.
Rather than have a jillion Y's trying to verify all the details of a jillion products to undo discrimination, a general tariff is easier to issue and verify. The more lopsided the aggregate trade value between countries, the bigger the tariff. We essentially "tax" their staff coming in until they balance their trade.
Are you implying the US *recently* exploited China?
Simple, they googled it.
I'm still in my mom's basement and the pizza number still works. Haven't had to leave.
And these people managed nuclear power plants? Yikes! I would imagine they'd at least consider a versioning system. If you ask for a page that's no longer relevant, you could at least see the archive menu or have a form pop up to request an archive copy or directions to the new equivalent.
"Just delete it" is too blunt for serious work. Dancing hamsters disappearing without a trace? Who cares. Emergency shut-off valve instructions? That's different.
To be fair, with all the screwy frameworks and API's needed to get PHB-approved eye-candy apps these days, it's hard to know why certain things really work (or don't work). Not all tweaks are logical: Han Solo still bangs the Millennium Falcon in a spot only known by him to get it work. "HanSolo.com says bang panel 7 if the foobulator stops working during high humidity."
My parents lived in the same house since the 1970's, and I imagine many others have also. I would expect roughly 20% would still be valid, at least in terms of a relative or descendant answering.
Oh, you mean like today's Comcast on Sundays.
...and you are trying to fix a problem traced to a specific line of source code:
You could be thinking, "stackoverflow? That site died 10 years ago. I'm SOL!"
I actually have a WROX book that says to see a stackoverflow link for details.
Yes there is. It basically requires "intent" OR "gross negligence". I don't know if the word they used is actually "intent", but it's synonymous, at least as I interpreted it.
Your alleged party bias claim is bogus.
Usually it comes down to "intent" to distribute malware or cause harm. It's the magic legal word. In extreme cases "gross negligence" (bigly sloppy) comes into play, but usually carries rather short sentences.
Hillary probably avoided "gross negligence" by not being given proper training by the Department. (The "briefing" was not a full training session; otherwise it would not be called a "briefing".) The issue there seemed to be a combination of "medium" negligence by many staff members, Hillary is just one. Bunches of people should have been at least slapped with a fine in my opinion.
Technically Microsoft may have been accurate. They probably scanned for malware themselves, removing any KNOWN problems, and then announcing they "found it to be clean". Sure, it's probably misleading even if technically accurate, but that's what marketers are paid to do: spin.
I'd be more surprised if a decent survey found zero malware.
Both parties piss bigly and their ideals. Democrats kiss up to crony capitalists (as does GOP) and get sucked into war expansion, and Republicans spend like drunken sailors on the military, DHS, security theater, ill-advised wars, bribing the elderly with Medicare Part D, and let oligopolies/monopolies kill competition merely by being big.
The real problem is that humans suck. Idealism is never reached on a long-term basis. But, ugly compromise is usually better than war.
Okay, they are both slackers about such, agreed, but which party is MORE likely to do something about such? Or is all the talk about how "great" deregulation is from Republicans merely talk?
I see that on just about any "free" software installation and update to get you to install extra "promotionware". Java still does it, last I remember. I suppose they can argue the "extra" product is not being charged for and thus does't fall under such statutes; and the boundary between product and "feature" can also be blurry. Still, it's an annoying practice.
The worse case I ever saw was a confirmation box with a double-negative, something like:
[_] I don't want to not install the ShinyMonkey Toolbar.
Half the users in the org ended up with the goddam ShinyMonkey Toolbar, which conflicted with other apps, causing job security and/or headaches for the help desk.
You are arguing that two wrongs make a right.
(I resisted the temptation to remove the 3rd "r". See, Mom, I'm improving!)
This is why I believe tariffs are needed to balance trade because there too many intricate relationships to micromanage by inspectors and lawyers if the US wants to stop discrimination of foreign products and services.
Set a simple tariff to be a percentage of the trade imbalance. Say the tariff is set at 1/5 the imbalance percent. Then if China exports 50% more goods/services to the US than it imports, the tariff would be 10%.
Activate it gradually to avoid shocking the markets. The tariff is not meant to punish them and dampen overall trade, but rather encourage them to balance things out and be more import-driven. Their ingrained habit is to discriminate against foreign products & services.
Disparaging is in the eye of the beholder.
The old terms are over-simplistic and may not be appropriate for all situations. Whether they believe in big gov't, small gov't, or purple gov't, they are "pro-Caucasian". That's the one thing they have in common; although each group may define it differently. For example, some are for mere separation of "races", saying mixing doesn't work and see the US being "polluted" by outside culture, while others claim Caucasians are genetically superior and therefore deserve to dominate.