No he just has enough money to afford both drugs and food. While many stimulant do have an effect on appetite, its never really been a panacea for those looking to lose weight. Much of the stereotype of emaciated drug users is a direct result of the ravages of the policy of increasing the price of drugs based on some misguided notion that if you can do anything you want in the name of helping someone who doesn't want your help, even if its not the least bit effective.
> There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's > considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.
Actually I ran into this concept through my wife's family: her grandfather recently developed leukemia and the doctors said it wasn't a cause for concern because at his age they expect it to progress slowly enough that something else is almost certainly going to kill him first.
Though as I read all this it reminds me of an older story where some segments of human DNA have actually been traced back not to other mammals but to viruses which infected our ancestors and managed to make their way into the reproduction pipeline and become part of our genome.
Theres rules that govern how bitcoin are created as well. whether you like them or not, they are self-enforcing.
I never once claimed the rules, as they are for US currency were not followed.... the whole point of pointing out what they are is because people deserve to know how corrupt the rules that are followed really are.
Just because they are being followed, doesn't mean I have to like them; and I encourage others to learn about them and not like them either; because unless you are a billionaire, it really should piss you off.
No you are pulling them out of an agreement protocol by its rules. It may not seem like an important difference to you but, it does mean you can't pull out more of them than the protocol allows for based on how much you have participated.
Even that however isn't the important part, the important part is that you can't just do it arbitrarily for arbitrary amounts.
If you wanted, say, to give 10 million dollars to your friend by loaning it to his wife in a no recourse loan (which is a very accurate description of how money routinely enters the US economy), as a fed regulator, you can do that.
As a bitcoin miner....you can do that too but, you are strictly limited to the bitcoins that you have already mined, and in no way are you adding in more bitcoins than had previously existed except for as allowed by what you already did and everybody else already knew about.
Except without the ability to designate a group to invent money out of thin air by lending it to your friend's wives with no-recourse loans. I mean, you can still do that but, you have to actually get the bitcoins first before you can give out those no-recourse loans and, in the end, only you lose out when they don't pay you back, since you had to actually have the bitcoins to lend out in the first place.
You are entirely missing the point though, even when only compared against other sources of efficiency loss.
Its absolutely correct, air resistance results in more loss at higher speed. That doesn't mean its actually a significant factor in actual driving on real roads where most cars actually are.
Yes, the few people who live in montana will likely burn a bit more gas. However, they likely mostly drove those speeds anyway so it wont even be more burnt gas but maybe a handful less tickets for doing so. In many cities you could eliminate speed limits all together and the net result would be nothing at all since there are so many other limiting factors on how fast you can drive most of the time when a lot of cars are out anyway.
Here in MA the max is still 65 but, simple speeding of 10 mph is hardly ever enforced. (seriously, you can pass a cop doing 5 over and he wont even stop sipping his coffee, I know thats not true in some states at all). Result? If there is not too much congestion lowering the speeds with jams, then the traffic speed is right about 75 and seems to be about where most drivers are comfortable driving.
Our problem is that we only just recently instituted "left lane for passing", so we have people who just saunter along like rolling road blocks in the left and middle lanes causing periodic backups as 8 cars out of 10 are trying to squeeze around the other two who are skipping down the road hand in hand at 55, and don't even feel like they should be over to the right.
While undeniably true, I think this is a misapplied fact since, while wind resistance may be a major factor in and of itself for car gas miliage and thus emissions, since my car has an MFI display that can show average miliage and instantaneous, I have been using it and, overall, do NOT find it to be the most major factor that actually influences my end gas miliage.
The difference in gas miliage between 45-50 MPH and 70-75 seems to be far more influenced by traffic conditions, which can easily result in a difference of over 5-7 miles per gallon difference, because so much of that gas is used not in maintaining higher speeds so much as accelerating back up from lower speeds over and over again.
Its congestion, not top speed which is the real problem with emissions.
I see what you are saying; and on a simplistic level sure it makes sense to consider but, that is a pretty radical proposition, especially when you would essentially be asking the aristocrats to implement it and enforce it.
It means you are asking everyone to put their complete trust in the system as it will exist. Frankly, I don't see a system I would ever have that level of trust in. It sounds like you just want to be slave to the most powerful and generous master.
I find it hillarious that they so easily conclude tor doesn't fill these gaps because they deem it too easy to break. That right there is some pretty extraordinary claim, I would want to see them do it if its so easy.
I don't think there is any evidence that tor, in this particular use case, is actually so easy to break. So far all evidence is that weaknesses lie in the services behind hidden services, in browsers used to use web based services in particular, and potentially in hidden services themselves.
A bitcoin node transmitting transactions really should be pretty safe, and if they have any evidence to the contrary, that would be much more interesting than their hand waving clickbait claims.
it is, though, I think this is amusing in a way as, where I work we have an internal messaging solution, but we are actually expressly forbidden from turning on logging because well...if we are using im for work, then likely important and confidential information goes over that channel, which is fine being both internal and encrypted to the endpoint but.... if we log, it means that information sitting around in logs, which is a liability since it would be yet one more source of confidential information that has to be protected.
It sounds to me like anyone using this is exposing themselves, and their employees to unnecessary risk.
Buzzfeed is that site that I keep seeing people share links to, and every once in a while one of them does look interesting and I want to follow it, but when I do, it never actually works because the site just wont work unless you allow your browser to load content and run scripts from half the internet, and I consider that a bit like walking up to a table with 10 people who all rise and start unbuttoning their pants as I am being told "here we don't shake hands, instead we have unprotected anal sex"....
In any case, I have never actually cared enough to figure out which sites I need to let have its way with me to actually read one of their articles. Eventually I just started auto ignoring any link to buzzfeed.
I normally try not to respond to/. posts this many days late unless its an ongoing conversation but, its taken me a few days to really come to why I am not so sure about this, even though, I mostly think you are correct.
I seriously worry about the creeping effects of these things. In some ways, yes, its great, it removes justification for use of excessive force, it exposes the process to more scrutiny, more opportunity for outrage when it goes wrong and is fully documented without a primary witness who is legitimately afraid to say the wrong thing, even if he was in the right. In terms of the simple individual engagement, it is all wins all around...and in the long run....probably cheaper too.
However it ignores two huge problems.
1. The obvious, liability. When it does go wrong, and it will.... something always goes wrong given enough chances, who is liable? Not just in terms of renumeration but, in terms of taking steps to be reduce the likelyhood of it happening again? Who is responsible if lessons are not learned? Admittedly, the answer today seems to be nobody at all, but I to be frank, that is one of the things I already find unsettling.
2. If costs of enforcement go down, we will have more of it. I am not sure we know what that means. Laws can be flawed, we have never actually lived in a time in history when it was possible to monitor as much as we can monitor, or to enforce laws on such scale as this could allow for, I am left very uneasy by the proposition of just how uncharted this territory actually is.
Can we hope that as enforcement becomes universal, laws begin to see themselves reviewed and fixed more quickly? Are we sure we can determine the difference between problems that need more law and more enforcement to fix and problems caused by them?
Overtreatment can cause diseases just as deadly as it is meant to cure. At least the medical community is aware of this and even has a word for it: iatrogenic. Disease caused by exposure to medical treatment. Its very real.
Look at Nelson Rockefellar. I genuinely believe he wanted to help people. He saw addicts and he tried instituting programs and forcing them into treatment under some belief that they needed it and he was helping. Eventually, in seeing this not work, he got more and more radical in his "treatment". Soon "zero tolerance" programs were springing up all over the nation....modeled after his sincere frustration at such an intractable disease.
What was the result? Well that was right around 1970, by 1980, HIV was an epidemic in full swing and nobody even knew it yet. How did it happen? Simple, needle sharing. Needle sharing spurned on by zero tolerance policies that put people in prison for being caught with paraphenelia like needles.
I am not convinced that making law enforcement cheaper and allowing it to be transparent is a panacea or even going to make things much better, since so many diseases look the same on camera.
Oh I got another gig as a sysadmin and eventually transitioned to Dev-ops.
His plan actually did eventually pay off, not so much on that client per se but over time he stuck with trying to build a company and now does have what sounds like a decently successful web design company....basically doing the same, except with an actual bit of a team under him (mostly inexperienced kids)
He says words like "SEO" a lot and really, is still pretty full of shit and, while I get along with the guy on a personal level, I know he is still nobody I want to work with professionally. He tempts me occasionally but,
He certainly makes a bit more than I do, but, he puts in a ton of hours slinging that bullshit; and still makes me feel like hes trying to sell me a car half the time.
ROTFL When I was between jobs I almost got involved with a guy like this. He was putting together a "team" to expand his business, he had a client, he had some basic specs, and another guy more senior than me, as in actually a developer rather than a sysadmin who could write some code (me).
Anyway, the guy who has setup a site like this before goes over the whole thing, soup to nuts, describes what we will need, that this is several weeks of work, and he should really be looking to charge around 10k for the work they were asking for.
A few days later, our "leader" comes back, says he pitched the job for 3k so we could get it under our belt, and "come on, you guys can bang it out in a couple of weekends". Oh and he thought, as the guy who is really doing all the work finding the clients and schmoozing them, he thinks his cut on these ventures should be 50%
Our little fledgling web development group never did have another meeting after that.
This right here. We can;t even agree, and the actual problem is so nuanced that its almost laughable that a robot as we understand them today could even begin to evaluate the situation.
for example.... If someone is coming at you branshing a gun, and pointing it at you, is it correct to shoot and possibly kill him?
On its face, this is simple, of course you can defend yourself. Can a robot? Is a robots continued operation worth a human life? (I may argue it could be with the imaginary hollywood style AI, but not robots as we understand them today)
What about considering why the person is threatening you? If you invaded his home, would it still be correct to shoot him? Would having a warrant make it ok?
I would say no and no, but most states only agree with me on the first one.
So I am very much against killer robots but, I am very much against the killer cops and soldiers we have now, so I don't expect my view to win out there.
That is exactly it. A check is a receipt, its unambiguous, there is record of it at both banks or in both ledgers of the same bank....its perfect for this. I mean hell, as a landlord I would rather not have to issue my own receipts because its much easier for me to remember that I never issued you an explicit receipt for anything than which ones and when.
and of course, just in the past year I know people who have had issues with the fact that they and others paid rent in cash a lot and money went missing. Digits on a check don't go missing.
Actually this is an interesting question and you might need to talk to a lawyer for a real answer, as IANAL but, as I understand it US dollars must be accepted FOR DEBT. Rent, paid on time, is not debt as its for the upcoming month, then again, I would think it becomes debt after the first since most places have a built in grace period and it takes time to actually kick people out (and any landlord who kicks people out for being a day or two late will be spending a lot of months with empty apartments and have ridiculous turnover rates)
Now OTOH whether its legal or not, I never paid rent in cash unless I was renting from my own mother. Even then, I usually gave her a check just because it was easier....and as a landlord, I always advised people that even when paying me they should prefer checks or money orders to maintain records.
I would much rather find out I was wrong and forgot to write down that you paid me than to have a dispute we can't resolve and always have to wonder about.
Sounds right to me. That really is what that little phrase on every bill about being useful for all debts "public and private" really means. If I want to trade you X for Y, I can do that, but, if you owe me anything, even if its a good, I HAVE to be willing, by law, to accept payment in dollars instead....or else my claim that you owe me anything is forfeit.
The most common example is something like a restaurant. You come in and eat. Now that you have eaten, a debt has been created, and you owe. The restaurant MUST by law accept US currency as payment for that debt. They can accept something else instead at their option but, they have to be willing to put a dollar amount on the debt and accept that.
If you ask me though, unless he agreed to this (not sure he did) it is quite a shitty way to go about it, especially since storing the bitcoin keys can't really be seen as presenting any sort of hardship to them. Its not like its a boat the size of the QE2 that they have to dock somewhere and keep afloat.
I would laugh but due to some mixups with laundry (having floors sanded can be disruptive to the house) the past week has given both my house keys and RSA key fob a nice trips through the laundry.
I assumed because the article didn't actually bother to address either of those questions. Those would have been excellent questions for a reporter to have asked and reported on the answer or lack of answer to. Since they didn't, I have to assume, by default, that the driver had insurance, since it wasn't brought up as an issue.
Overall, seems to me like making sure he has insurance would make sense to be part of their due diligence in using him as a driver but, nothing that I have seen has confirmed nor disconfirmed whether or not they do that or did that.
At least in this article I don't see what they did so wrong. The driver was at fault, it was reported to the police, Uber says it deactivated his account pending investigation of the incident. Sounds like, at least by their statements, they are doing the right thing.
I assume the driver had insurance which he carried separately, and its his car so he can and will drive whether he has an uber account or not.... so I really don't see what more they would expect? This all seems relatively straightforward about who is at fault and why and it isn't really Uber, it is the driver.
Well slightly confusing as it sounds like it IS for windows 8 and 8.1, but, its not critical on those platforms since the actual vulnerability is not present, but it still does make some changes.
This sounds to me like "an unrelated change we made in 8 made this, we think, unexploitable, but we are patching the error anyway, just in case". Not sure that is exactly correct, but that is how I interpret that.
Its easy to forget, especially when many of us talk so much about large policy issues, that the US government is NOT a single org but a very large umbrella collection of many interdependent orgs, each with their own agenda.
Sometimes these agendas align, sometimes, they diverge and work at cross purposes.
The NSA has no operational need for tor, they are likely 100% focused on breaking it. Likewise the DEA, and FBI similarly. However, you start getting to DARPA, and parts of the State Department, and a strong tor is actually an asset for some of them or the people they support.
Actually a website that does this tricked someone I know recently. I was actually engaged in a card game when they came up to me exclaiming this website could do math with the numbers in her head, and it worked every time.
It took me about 20 seconds to figure out what was going on, and even despite suggesting "why don't you try again, write out each step" and then "try it again with X for your number, and write out each step", still more than 20 minutes to get them to see what was going on.
Slashdot Mirror
No he just has enough money to afford both drugs and food. While many stimulant do have an effect on appetite, its never really been a panacea for those looking to lose weight. Much of the stereotype of emaciated drug users is a direct result of the ravages of the policy of increasing the price of drugs based on some misguided notion that if you can do anything you want in the name of helping someone who doesn't want your help, even if its not the least bit effective.
> There's a form of prostate cancer that develops so slowly that if you're old enough when you get it, it's
> considered quite reasonable to not even treat it, but rather monitor it to make sure it continues to develop slowly.
Actually I ran into this concept through my wife's family: her grandfather recently developed leukemia and the doctors said it wasn't a cause for concern because at his age they expect it to progress slowly enough that something else is almost certainly going to kill him first.
Though as I read all this it reminds me of an older story where some segments of human DNA have actually been traced back not to other mammals but to viruses which infected our ancestors and managed to make their way into the reproduction pipeline and become part of our genome.
Theres rules that govern how bitcoin are created as well. whether you like them or not, they are self-enforcing.
I never once claimed the rules, as they are for US currency were not followed.... the whole point of pointing out what they are is because people deserve to know how corrupt the rules that are followed really are.
Just because they are being followed, doesn't mean I have to like them; and I encourage others to learn about them and not like them either; because unless you are a billionaire, it really should piss you off.
No you are pulling them out of an agreement protocol by its rules. It may not seem like an important difference to you but, it does mean you can't pull out more of them than the protocol allows for based on how much you have participated.
Even that however isn't the important part, the important part is that you can't just do it arbitrarily for arbitrary amounts.
If you wanted, say, to give 10 million dollars to your friend by loaning it to his wife in a no recourse loan (which is a very accurate description of how money routinely enters the US economy), as a fed regulator, you can do that.
As a bitcoin miner....you can do that too but, you are strictly limited to the bitcoins that you have already mined, and in no way are you adding in more bitcoins than had previously existed except for as allowed by what you already did and everybody else already knew about.
Except without the ability to designate a group to invent money out of thin air by lending it to your friend's wives with no-recourse loans. I mean, you can still do that but, you have to actually get the bitcoins first before you can give out those no-recourse loans and, in the end, only you lose out when they don't pay you back, since you had to actually have the bitcoins to lend out in the first place.
But other than that, yup exactly like it.
You are entirely missing the point though, even when only compared against other sources of efficiency loss.
Its absolutely correct, air resistance results in more loss at higher speed. That doesn't mean its actually a significant factor in actual driving on real roads where most cars actually are.
Yes, the few people who live in montana will likely burn a bit more gas. However, they likely mostly drove those speeds anyway so it wont even be more burnt gas but maybe a handful less tickets for doing so. In many cities you could eliminate speed limits all together and the net result would be nothing at all since there are so many other limiting factors on how fast you can drive most of the time when a lot of cars are out anyway.
Here in MA the max is still 65 but, simple speeding of 10 mph is hardly ever enforced. (seriously, you can pass a cop doing 5 over and he wont even stop sipping his coffee, I know thats not true in some states at all). Result? If there is not too much congestion lowering the speeds with jams, then the traffic speed is right about 75 and seems to be about where most drivers are comfortable driving.
Our problem is that we only just recently instituted "left lane for passing", so we have people who just saunter along like rolling road blocks in the left and middle lanes causing periodic backups as 8 cars out of 10 are trying to squeeze around the other two who are skipping down the road hand in hand at 55, and don't even feel like they should be over to the right.
While undeniably true, I think this is a misapplied fact since, while wind resistance may be a major factor in and of itself for car gas miliage and thus emissions, since my car has an MFI display that can show average miliage and instantaneous, I have been using it and, overall, do NOT find it to be the most major factor that actually influences my end gas miliage.
The difference in gas miliage between 45-50 MPH and 70-75 seems to be far more influenced by traffic conditions, which can easily result in a difference of over 5-7 miles per gallon difference, because so much of that gas is used not in maintaining higher speeds so much as accelerating back up from lower speeds over and over again.
Its congestion, not top speed which is the real problem with emissions.
I see what you are saying; and on a simplistic level sure it makes sense to consider but, that is a pretty radical proposition, especially when you would essentially be asking the aristocrats to implement it and enforce it.
It means you are asking everyone to put their complete trust in the system as it will exist. Frankly, I don't see a system I would ever have that level of trust in. It sounds like you just want to be slave to the most powerful and generous master.
I find it hillarious that they so easily conclude tor doesn't fill these gaps because they deem it too easy to break. That right there is some pretty extraordinary claim, I would want to see them do it if its so easy.
I don't think there is any evidence that tor, in this particular use case, is actually so easy to break. So far all evidence is that weaknesses lie in the services behind hidden services, in browsers used to use web based services in particular, and potentially in hidden services themselves.
A bitcoin node transmitting transactions really should be pretty safe, and if they have any evidence to the contrary, that would be much more interesting than their hand waving clickbait claims.
it is, though, I think this is amusing in a way as, where I work we have an internal messaging solution, but we are actually expressly forbidden from turning on logging because well...if we are using im for work, then likely important and confidential information goes over that channel, which is fine being both internal and encrypted to the endpoint but.... if we log, it means that information sitting around in logs, which is a liability since it would be yet one more source of confidential information that has to be protected.
It sounds to me like anyone using this is exposing themselves, and their employees to unnecessary risk.
Buzzfeed is that site that I keep seeing people share links to, and every once in a while one of them does look interesting and I want to follow it, but when I do, it never actually works because the site just wont work unless you allow your browser to load content and run scripts from half the internet, and I consider that a bit like walking up to a table with 10 people who all rise and start unbuttoning their pants as I am being told "here we don't shake hands, instead we have unprotected anal sex"....
In any case, I have never actually cared enough to figure out which sites I need to let have its way with me to actually read one of their articles. Eventually I just started auto ignoring any link to buzzfeed.
I normally try not to respond to /. posts this many days late unless its an ongoing conversation but, its taken me a few days to really come to why I am not so sure about this, even though, I mostly think you are correct.
I seriously worry about the creeping effects of these things. In some ways, yes, its great, it removes justification for use of excessive force, it exposes the process to more scrutiny, more opportunity for outrage when it goes wrong and is fully documented without a primary witness who is legitimately afraid to say the wrong thing, even if he was in the right. In terms of the simple individual engagement, it is all wins all around...and in the long run....probably cheaper too.
However it ignores two huge problems.
1. The obvious, liability. When it does go wrong, and it will.... something always goes wrong given enough chances, who is liable? Not just in terms of renumeration but, in terms of taking steps to be reduce the likelyhood of it happening again? Who is responsible if lessons are not learned?
Admittedly, the answer today seems to be nobody at all, but I to be frank, that is one of the things I already find unsettling.
2. If costs of enforcement go down, we will have more of it. I am not sure we know what that means. Laws can be flawed, we have never actually lived in a time in history when it was possible to monitor as much as we can monitor, or to enforce laws on such scale as this could allow for, I am left very uneasy by the proposition of just how uncharted this territory actually is.
Can we hope that as enforcement becomes universal, laws begin to see themselves reviewed and fixed more quickly? Are we sure we can determine the difference between problems that need more law and more enforcement to fix and problems caused by them?
Overtreatment can cause diseases just as deadly as it is meant to cure. At least the medical community is aware of this and even has a word for it: iatrogenic. Disease caused by exposure to medical treatment. Its very real.
Look at Nelson Rockefellar. I genuinely believe he wanted to help people. He saw addicts and he tried instituting programs and forcing them into treatment under some belief that they needed it and he was helping. Eventually, in seeing this not work, he got more and more radical in his "treatment". Soon "zero tolerance" programs were springing up all over the nation....modeled after his sincere frustration at such an intractable disease.
What was the result? Well that was right around 1970, by 1980, HIV was an epidemic in full swing and nobody even knew it yet. How did it happen? Simple, needle sharing. Needle sharing spurned on by zero tolerance policies that put people in prison for being caught with paraphenelia like needles.
I am not convinced that making law enforcement cheaper and allowing it to be transparent is a panacea or even going to make things much better, since so many diseases look the same on camera.
Oh I got another gig as a sysadmin and eventually transitioned to Dev-ops.
His plan actually did eventually pay off, not so much on that client per se but over time he stuck with trying to build a company and now does have what sounds like a decently successful web design company....basically doing the same, except with an actual bit of a team under him (mostly inexperienced kids)
He says words like "SEO" a lot and really, is still pretty full of shit and, while I get along with the guy on a personal level, I know he is still nobody I want to work with professionally. He tempts me occasionally but,
He certainly makes a bit more than I do, but, he puts in a ton of hours slinging that bullshit; and still makes me feel like hes trying to sell me a car half the time.
ROTFL When I was between jobs I almost got involved with a guy like this. He was putting together a "team" to expand his business, he had a client, he had some basic specs, and another guy more senior than me, as in actually a developer rather than a sysadmin who could write some code (me).
Anyway, the guy who has setup a site like this before goes over the whole thing, soup to nuts, describes what we will need, that this is several weeks of work, and he should really be looking to charge around 10k for the work they were asking for.
A few days later, our "leader" comes back, says he pitched the job for 3k so we could get it under our belt, and "come on, you guys can bang it out in a couple of weekends". Oh and he thought, as the guy who is really doing all the work finding the clients and schmoozing them, he thinks his cut on these ventures should be 50%
Our little fledgling web development group never did have another meeting after that.
This right here. We can;t even agree, and the actual problem is so nuanced that its almost laughable that a robot as we understand them today could even begin to evaluate the situation.
for example.... If someone is coming at you branshing a gun, and pointing it at you, is it correct to shoot and possibly kill him?
On its face, this is simple, of course you can defend yourself. Can a robot? Is a robots continued operation worth a human life? (I may argue it could be with the imaginary hollywood style AI, but not robots as we understand them today)
What about considering why the person is threatening you? If you invaded his home, would it still be correct to shoot him? Would having a warrant make it ok?
I would say no and no, but most states only agree with me on the first one.
So I am very much against killer robots but, I am very much against the killer cops and soldiers we have now, so I don't expect my view to win out there.
That is exactly it. A check is a receipt, its unambiguous, there is record of it at both banks or in both ledgers of the same bank....its perfect for this. I mean hell, as a landlord I would rather not have to issue my own receipts because its much easier for me to remember that I never issued you an explicit receipt for anything than which ones and when.
and of course, just in the past year I know people who have had issues with the fact that they and others paid rent in cash a lot and money went missing. Digits on a check don't go missing.
Actually this is an interesting question and you might need to talk to a lawyer for a real answer, as IANAL but, as I understand it US dollars must be accepted FOR DEBT. Rent, paid on time, is not debt as its for the upcoming month, then again, I would think it becomes debt after the first since most places have a built in grace period and it takes time to actually kick people out (and any landlord who kicks people out for being a day or two late will be spending a lot of months with empty apartments and have ridiculous turnover rates)
Now OTOH whether its legal or not, I never paid rent in cash unless I was renting from my own mother. Even then, I usually gave her a check just because it was easier....and as a landlord, I always advised people that even when paying me they should prefer checks or money orders to maintain records.
I would much rather find out I was wrong and forgot to write down that you paid me than to have a dispute we can't resolve and always have to wonder about.
Sounds right to me. That really is what that little phrase on every bill about being useful for all debts "public and private" really means. If I want to trade you X for Y, I can do that, but, if you owe me anything, even if its a good, I HAVE to be willing, by law, to accept payment in dollars instead....or else my claim that you owe me anything is forfeit.
The most common example is something like a restaurant. You come in and eat. Now that you have eaten, a debt has been created, and you owe. The restaurant MUST by law accept US currency as payment for that debt. They can accept something else instead at their option but, they have to be willing to put a dollar amount on the debt and accept that.
If you ask me though, unless he agreed to this (not sure he did) it is quite a shitty way to go about it, especially since storing the bitcoin keys can't really be seen as presenting any sort of hardship to them. Its not like its a boat the size of the QE2 that they have to dock somewhere and keep afloat.
I would laugh but due to some mixups with laundry (having floors sanded can be disruptive to the house) the past week has given both my house keys and RSA key fob a nice trips through the laundry.
I assumed because the article didn't actually bother to address either of those questions. Those would have been excellent questions for a reporter to have asked and reported on the answer or lack of answer to. Since they didn't, I have to assume, by default, that the driver had insurance, since it wasn't brought up as an issue.
Overall, seems to me like making sure he has insurance would make sense to be part of their due diligence in using him as a driver but, nothing that I have seen has confirmed nor disconfirmed whether or not they do that or did that.
At least in this article I don't see what they did so wrong. The driver was at fault, it was reported to the police, Uber says it deactivated his account pending investigation of the incident. Sounds like, at least by their statements, they are doing the right thing.
I assume the driver had insurance which he carried separately, and its his car so he can and will drive whether he has an uber account or not.... so I really don't see what more they would expect? This all seems relatively straightforward about who is at fault and why and it isn't really Uber, it is the driver.
Well slightly confusing as it sounds like it IS for windows 8 and 8.1, but, its not critical on those platforms since the actual vulnerability is not present, but it still does make some changes.
This sounds to me like "an unrelated change we made in 8 made this, we think, unexploitable, but we are patching the error anyway, just in case". Not sure that is exactly correct, but that is how I interpret that.
Its easy to forget, especially when many of us talk so much about large policy issues, that the US government is NOT a single org but a very large umbrella collection of many interdependent orgs, each with their own agenda.
Sometimes these agendas align, sometimes, they diverge and work at cross purposes.
The NSA has no operational need for tor, they are likely 100% focused on breaking it. Likewise the DEA, and FBI similarly. However, you start getting to DARPA, and parts of the State Department, and a strong tor is actually an asset for some of them or the people they support.
Actually a website that does this tricked someone I know recently. I was actually engaged in a card game when they came up to me exclaiming this website could do math with the numbers in her head, and it worked every time.
It took me about 20 seconds to figure out what was going on, and even despite suggesting "why don't you try again, write out each step" and then "try it again with X for your number, and write out each step", still more than 20 minutes to get them to see what was going on.