I think the real problem resides there : how the hell could policy maker let this kind of deal go through ?
40% revenue from other people's offense kind of incitates the camera provider to artificially lower the speed limit in the machine. Well, let's "call a cat a cat" : it downright incitates fraud from the device provider in reporting false speed tickets, cause let's be honest, this is in all likelyhood what just happened there that was exposed.
I just don't get how this was not set as a "pay for the device and maintenance" contract. I mean, the fishy smell is just so obvious, really. How can people let this pass ?
Cameras are good, but under these terms are just bound to be abused.
The brain is an organ that is actually full of surprises.
We have seen people recover from severe nerve injury and know that neurons can be rearranged all the time.
Is there a definite proof that the brain can't adapt to something it wasn't explicitly programmed for ? Frankly, I would not be so surprised that it could.
The proposed definition is very strict. Pointing out an example where it doesn't make sense is a fallacy?
It was not that strict, and common sense must apply when reading one's comment. The original poster meant gifts made directly or indirectly by external entities to one's direct relation circle. Gifts from friends are acceptable, except in case of conflicts of interest when said friend actually has a big company which he would like you to support.
Could you clarify this? You're saying there are no legal ways for politicians in Europe to profit from their positions?
Eeer. They have fixed salaries paid for by the state. That's what I call profit. Politics is a public matter, and should stay public, without any kind of intervention from the private sectors.
I'm french, so let's talk about France. In here, elected officials have salaries, just like any employed persons. Whenever the state calls for a private entity to execute any given project, it puts several them in competition, and must evaluate all of the offers and only choose the best one according to known criterions (ie, all of the competitors have access to them when the call is made).
If it turns out a deal has been handed because of relations and by bypassing the whole process, the elected officials in charge face legal prosecution, and the deal is broken, calling for a new call to offers.
In the case of law making, the gifts that companies can make to deputies are very reglemented, and as a matter of fact a law was passed some time ago to further limit them (there were before some small exceptions).
I don't get how a system based on lobbies and friendship between companies and politicians can be seen as anything positive, really. To me, this is just a system based on greed, which is certainly not in the interest of the people. A state that doesn't act in the interest of its people is in my eyes not a worthy state.
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
Fallacy spotted. Please contribute to the debate with real arguments, thank you.
Wow, you really have your head up your ass, don't you? Every other civilized country in the world has enacted anti-corruption laws which have loopholes.
I'd be delighted if you could actually show me those loopholes in european countries. We have our fair share of corrupt politician over here, but they don't use any loopholes. They falsify, and when they get caught, they (hopefully) go to jail. There is no intended loophole.
So if I own a holding company, which in turns owns two other companies of mine, I am not allowed to receive any money from MY company.
If the company is yours, there is no problem in you perceiving money from it. There is however a potential problem of conflict of interests that will have to be watched by an independent commission should you be elected.
The problem with many American people is that they're so proud of the U.S.A. that they will defend it tooth and nail, even in its utmost illogical and unjust aspects and feel threatened every time some guy points out the idiocy of some parts of their system. Every country has its defects, and some that are under the international spotlight have theirs more exposed than others. Get used to it.
In that world, actors won't get 30+ millions buck just for being famous and having a beautiful face.
In that world, studios will actually look how to cut expenses on special effects. Just see this video of 3d robots and think it was made by 2 people with around 600 bucks. While it is not representative of how much it would have cost if it were a pay job, it still shows that creativity and inventivity lead to good things with work
In that world, maybe people will learn what something is really worth. The studios just like to plaster everything with money with high revenue expectation, without actually caring about the movies itself.
Well, pardon my ignorance, but I thought it was a typo.
I wouldn't have looked it up on google.
And actually, I don't think many of us would.
I propose we make it a half woosh!
Oh no no, they're not unhappy about having to sell more.
My guess is by making such a statement, they will use it to keep the costs high for the end user (the law of demand and availability), and not have to sweat off too much by actually making efforts instead of complaining.
Completely, and seeing how we (I mean by that all major nuclear nations) can blow our own planet several dozen of times, I think it's completely in the feasible range:)
"I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange."
I think that this just shows some kind of trend of Microsoft pulling out from the OS world.
Look at it : their main product (windows) just has brought them trouble, trouble, trouble, and oh, bad reputation also. Lately, they have opened up to lots of other markets, most of them being infinitely more profitable than their main product (and let's not talk about Vista, nor piracy).
My thoughts on it is that they want to pull out of it. Maybe not completely, but mostly.
Now, if you look at it, there are tons of people out there working free to better a free OS. So why not help them in the end and set foot there ?
Another thing, the main apps we use now are more and more migrating to web solutions instead of software being installed on your drive : just look at all what google offers. Which again is yet another reason to forget about the OS crap which is pulling them back.
I wouldn't be surprised if they turned into some kind of service company completely web-based..
Slashdot Mirror
I think the real problem resides there : how the hell could policy maker let this kind of deal go through ?
40% revenue from other people's offense kind of incitates the camera provider to artificially lower the speed limit in the machine. Well, let's "call a cat a cat" : it downright incitates fraud from the device provider in reporting false speed tickets, cause let's be honest, this is in all likelyhood what just happened there that was exposed.
I just don't get how this was not set as a "pay for the device and maintenance" contract. I mean, the fishy smell is just so obvious, really. How can people let this pass ?
Cameras are good, but under these terms are just bound to be abused.
The brain is an organ that is actually full of surprises.
We have seen people recover from severe nerve injury and know that neurons can be rearranged all the time.
Is there a definite proof that the brain can't adapt to something it wasn't explicitly programmed for ? Frankly, I would not be so surprised that it could.
Yes, pretty much just like the United States of America is not America itself, contrary to what its short-hand name "America" could lead one to think.
Yet, it doesn't seem to steer confusion in people's mind.
How was that modded "Troll" ?
This deserves a +5 inconvenient truth.
The proposed definition is very strict. Pointing out an example where it doesn't make sense is a fallacy?
It was not that strict, and common sense must apply when reading one's comment. The original poster meant gifts made directly or indirectly by external entities to one's direct relation circle. Gifts from friends are acceptable, except in case of conflicts of interest when said friend actually has a big company which he would like you to support.
Could you clarify this? You're saying there are no legal ways for politicians in Europe to profit from their positions?
Eeer. They have fixed salaries paid for by the state. That's what I call profit. Politics is a public matter, and should stay public, without any kind of intervention from the private sectors.
I'm french, so let's talk about France. In here, elected officials have salaries, just like any employed persons. Whenever the state calls for a private entity to execute any given project, it puts several them in competition, and must evaluate all of the offers and only choose the best one according to known criterions (ie, all of the competitors have access to them when the call is made).
If it turns out a deal has been handed because of relations and by bypassing the whole process, the elected officials in charge face legal prosecution, and the deal is broken, calling for a new call to offers.
In the case of law making, the gifts that companies can make to deputies are very reglemented, and as a matter of fact a law was passed some time ago to further limit them (there were before some small exceptions).
I don't get how a system based on lobbies and friendship between companies and politicians can be seen as anything positive, really. To me, this is just a system based on greed, which is certainly not in the interest of the people. A state that doesn't act in the interest of its people is in my eyes not a worthy state.
So if my best friend is running for political office, I can't buy him a birthday gift, or even a drink at the bar, because that would be corruption & bribery under your definition.
Fallacy spotted. Please contribute to the debate with real arguments, thank you.
Wow, you really have your head up your ass, don't you? Every other civilized country in the world has enacted anti-corruption laws which have loopholes.
I'd be delighted if you could actually show me those loopholes in european countries. We have our fair share of corrupt politician over here, but they don't use any loopholes. They falsify, and when they get caught, they (hopefully) go to jail. There is no intended loophole.
So if I own a holding company, which in turns owns two other companies of mine, I am not allowed to receive any money from MY company.
If the company is yours, there is no problem in you perceiving money from it. There is however a potential problem of conflict of interests that will have to be watched by an independent commission should you be elected.
The problem with many American people is that they're so proud of the U.S.A. that they will defend it tooth and nail, even in its utmost illogical and unjust aspects and feel threatened every time some guy points out the idiocy of some parts of their system. Every country has its defects, and some that are under the international spotlight have theirs more exposed than others. Get used to it.
I'm not saying cutting all costs entirely, I'm just saying that there is WAY TOO MUCH money invested in movies that are not worth it.
Come on, paying some one for a 2 months period a few millions bucks, tell me this is isn't crazy.
The movies industry is just the spearhead of our rotten world. It just shows how we forgot what the value of things was.
In that world, actors won't get 30+ millions buck just for being famous and having a beautiful face.
In that world, studios will actually look how to cut expenses on special effects. Just see this video of 3d robots and think it was made by 2 people with around 600 bucks. While it is not representative of how much it would have cost if it were a pay job, it still shows that creativity and inventivity lead to good things with work
In that world, maybe people will learn what something is really worth. The studios just like to plaster everything with money with high revenue expectation, without actually caring about the movies itself.
Well, pardon my ignorance, but I thought it was a typo. I wouldn't have looked it up on google. And actually, I don't think many of us would. I propose we make it a half woosh!
Oh no no, they're not unhappy about having to sell more. My guess is by making such a statement, they will use it to keep the costs high for the end user (the law of demand and availability), and not have to sweat off too much by actually making efforts instead of complaining.
Completely, and seeing how we (I mean by that all major nuclear nations) can blow our own planet several dozen of times, I think it's completely in the feasible range :)
Reminds me of that manga called "Planetes" about a team of space debris cleaners.
The story started as a discovery-type vessel got hit by a screw which led to a window exploding, killing everyone.
It's a pretty good reading imho, very informative for what's about to come in the space exploration adventure.
"I dont understand why Microsoft has been so friendly to OSS sofwtare on windows, but this is well strange."
I think that this just shows some kind of trend of Microsoft pulling out from the OS world.
Look at it : their main product (windows) just has brought them trouble, trouble, trouble, and oh, bad reputation also. Lately, they have opened up to lots of other markets, most of them being infinitely more profitable than their main product (and let's not talk about Vista, nor piracy).
My thoughts on it is that they want to pull out of it. Maybe not completely, but mostly.
Now, if you look at it, there are tons of people out there working free to better a free OS. So why not help them in the end and set foot there ?
Another thing, the main apps we use now are more and more migrating to web solutions instead of software being installed on your drive : just look at all what google offers. Which again is yet another reason to forget about the OS crap which is pulling them back.
I wouldn't be surprised if they turned into some kind of service company completely web-based..