As a matter of economics, if people wasted enough time with the actual live operators, then the spamming would stop. Just like everything else out there, it's a business, and they have a cost -- in this case the major variable price is the cost of having live operators respond to calls and collect an hourly wage. If the cost incurred is high enough, because people who hate spam calls fight back enough, then the business cost exceeds their income, and they won't be placing anymore calls.
That is the problem with swatting: cops show up with adrenaline, and the innocent risk getting shot when they are actually no threat at all. In Kansas, there is a law which essentially transfers the blame from the police that they commit over to the instigator of the event, in this case Tyler Barriss. So that's why the officer got off with no punishment. The law says that the perpetrator is to blame for the events that happened.
I could rob a bank, and say that I did it because Crooked Hillary told me to do so. Would you then go ahead and arrest Crooked Hillary for masterminding a bank robbery?
It's not weird. Being in the EU was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread. And the Remainer camp enjoyed a massive number of endorsements, the Remain vote should have won with 70+% of the vote. That would have ended the issue for Cameron.
I have confidence that the dairy farm will keep their containers nice, just as how my propane tanks are clean and functional. Apparently it's all the other fools and what they do with their equipment when they don't care. If the container comes from some random previous owner, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
Just like how if you turn in an empty propane tank to exchange it for a filled one, and all the refurbished ones are garbage because they're rusty and leaky, so I never turn my empty propane tanks and just get mine refilled -- I'm sure I'm going to LOVE drinking milk from a refurbished steel container!
Yes, the underlying transmission, broadband, is the thing that we're attempting to determine if it's defined as telecommunication or an information service. The FCC in court is going to attempt to argue that things such as DNS and the IP protocol are what make up broadband, and they are defined as information services, while some copper line or fiber optic cables are classified as the telecommunication network. I'm just saying to be careful not to fall into the trap that the services like VOIP carried over the internet are forms of communication, therefore you think that they legally fall under the definition of telecommunications.
Be careful. Stacking indicates that broadband is NOT defined as telecommunication. From the article: "Millett pointed out the importance of the "via telecommunications" phrase in the information service definition, which makes it clear that an information service rides on top of a telecommunications network." Meanwhile, telecommunications is defined as "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." The more you stack, the more you risk changing the form during transmission, thereby defining it better as an information service. You're falling into the Ajit Pai definition, which is going to lose the court case.
Is there any chance of organizing a campaign to poison the database? Get people to send in DNA samples, but label it with the wrong person/address? And what happens if you send in blood from a different species?
Nothing is assured in life, and certainly is not assured with nuclear power. In the aerospace industry, there are still accidents despite major safety management oversight. So it looks like the best we can do is "minimal risk", which still kind of sucks because when there's a disastrous event then somebody unlucky locals get to suffer the consequences through no fault of their own. Unless societal outlook changes to accept that life is inherently unsafe and sometimes unfair, then there won't be an acceptance of beneficial systems that carry low occurrence/high cost drawbacks.
Of course, there are then consequences for companies leaving. 1.) Job loss, 2.) risk of angry citizens if blocking/censorship occurs 3.) technological stagnation as few people want to deploy time/money/resources in a repressive country, if they could choose to deploy anywhere else, 4.) visitors mocking a repressive country for not being able to access something viewed as a common utility, 5.) websites that leave may continue to advertise in your country anyhow if the businesses can get money overseas to pay for the ads, leading to all the downside risks with no benefit of control,
I like my lower energy costs, and delivery has been highly reliable. Thank you, President Trump! And thank you for understanding that no amount of taxes and regulations on the United States will cause the biggest polluters in India and China to reduce their output; it would only harm U.S. jobs and standards of living.
Belief in "experts" or "omnipotent technology" sounds to me like another lame excuse to give socialism a try. "It didn't work last time, or the time before that, but trust us, this computer that I built is so smart that it can defy the laws of supply and demand!"
I suppose that if a self-driving car will hit a minivan because the car has a thief in it, then you have no reason to trust the self-driving car when YOU are inside.
Naturally, it was a ruse back then to get Assange to drop his guard. My main hope at this point is that formal charges will get the ball rolling on actual due process. Fortunately, the Deep State usually hates laying its cards on the table, so I'm optimistic that if some authority is required by a court to lay facts and evidence down for all to see, then they'll scurry away and drop the charges.
It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right?
Probably not. If you were to hack into a bank and transfer the money into your own offshore account, then I'm certain that the country with the bank would have both some law saying that they can extradite you, as well as some treaty with a bunch of other countries that give permission for the extradition. Not that I believe it's okay to charge anyone outside of your country with anything, I'm just saying with certainty that such laws exist.
In this case, it's the tax-competitive country losing money. The tax-competitive country currently collects X. The new EU tax will collect 2X no matter where the company is located. The company moves most of its key employees and tech jobs to the United States, leaving behind a skeleton sales crew to collect sales. The sales group moves to another country with warmer weather. The tax-competitive country gets 0 X, the country with warmer weather gets 0.25 X, and the EU kleptocrats are left scratching their heads wondering "Why don't we have enough money or jobs?" UNLESS the tax-competitive country tells the EU to shove off.
You already tax the tech giants. If there are tech giant employees in your country, then you likely tax their income. And if product sales occur within your country, then that is also taxed. But this new tax isn't about that. Instead it's about taxing the companies no matter where they are located. High tax countries are upset that large tech companies have avoided them, and so they're barely getting any tax money. Some countries are willing to be tax-competitive, and are rightfully worried that if the EU collects taxes no matter where a company is located, then the companies will probably move to some other country, thereby causing the country to lose a large amount of corporate tax.
First, the energy wasnt wasted, unless you think that you know better than everyone else and should be the arbiter of everyone else's energy decisions. Who is to say that a cryptocurrency won't be double or triple the current value in the future? Who is to say i cant prefer $1000 equivalent of a cryptocurrency that i can easily exchange, rather than a $1000 chunk of platinum in my hand that i cant easily exchange? Second, the miners likely paid for their energy fair and square. Third, you sound like someone jealous that they didnt get involved with crypto early. I bet you'd sing a different tune had you mined a bitcoin a few years ago for $500.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I wouldn't regulate the big internet corporations. I would break them up for being monopolies.
As a matter of economics, if people wasted enough time with the actual live operators, then the spamming would stop. Just like everything else out there, it's a business, and they have a cost -- in this case the major variable price is the cost of having live operators respond to calls and collect an hourly wage. If the cost incurred is high enough, because people who hate spam calls fight back enough, then the business cost exceeds their income, and they won't be placing anymore calls.
That is the problem with swatting: cops show up with adrenaline, and the innocent risk getting shot when they are actually no threat at all. In Kansas, there is a law which essentially transfers the blame from the police that they commit over to the instigator of the event, in this case Tyler Barriss. So that's why the officer got off with no punishment. The law says that the perpetrator is to blame for the events that happened.
I could rob a bank, and say that I did it because Crooked Hillary told me to do so. Would you then go ahead and arrest Crooked Hillary for masterminding a bank robbery?
It looks like the leftists couldn't get their SJW's at Facebook to silence the message, so now they demand that the government censor it instead.
It's not weird. Being in the EU was supposed to be the best thing since sliced bread. And the Remainer camp enjoyed a massive number of endorsements, the Remain vote should have won with 70+% of the vote. That would have ended the issue for Cameron.
Of course, if a bunch of Democrats get together and put together a biased newspaper, then it's okay?
I have confidence that the dairy farm will keep their containers nice, just as how my propane tanks are clean and functional. Apparently it's all the other fools and what they do with their equipment when they don't care. If the container comes from some random previous owner, I don't want to have anything to do with it.
Just like how if you turn in an empty propane tank to exchange it for a filled one, and all the refurbished ones are garbage because they're rusty and leaky, so I never turn my empty propane tanks and just get mine refilled -- I'm sure I'm going to LOVE drinking milk from a refurbished steel container!
Yes, the underlying transmission, broadband, is the thing that we're attempting to determine if it's defined as telecommunication or an information service. The FCC in court is going to attempt to argue that things such as DNS and the IP protocol are what make up broadband, and they are defined as information services, while some copper line or fiber optic cables are classified as the telecommunication network. I'm just saying to be careful not to fall into the trap that the services like VOIP carried over the internet are forms of communication, therefore you think that they legally fall under the definition of telecommunications.
Be careful. Stacking indicates that broadband is NOT defined as telecommunication. From the article: "Millett pointed out the importance of the "via telecommunications" phrase in the information service definition, which makes it clear that an information service rides on top of a telecommunications network." Meanwhile, telecommunications is defined as "the transmission, between or among points specified by the user, of information of the user's choosing, without change in the form or content of the information as sent and received." The more you stack, the more you risk changing the form during transmission, thereby defining it better as an information service. You're falling into the Ajit Pai definition, which is going to lose the court case.
Is there any chance of organizing a campaign to poison the database? Get people to send in DNA samples, but label it with the wrong person/address? And what happens if you send in blood from a different species?
Nothing is assured in life, and certainly is not assured with nuclear power. In the aerospace industry, there are still accidents despite major safety management oversight. So it looks like the best we can do is "minimal risk", which still kind of sucks because when there's a disastrous event then somebody unlucky locals get to suffer the consequences through no fault of their own. Unless societal outlook changes to accept that life is inherently unsafe and sometimes unfair, then there won't be an acceptance of beneficial systems that carry low occurrence/high cost drawbacks.
Of course, there are then consequences for companies leaving. 1.) Job loss, 2.) risk of angry citizens if blocking/censorship occurs 3.) technological stagnation as few people want to deploy time/money/resources in a repressive country, if they could choose to deploy anywhere else, 4.) visitors mocking a repressive country for not being able to access something viewed as a common utility, 5.) websites that leave may continue to advertise in your country anyhow if the businesses can get money overseas to pay for the ads, leading to all the downside risks with no benefit of control,
I like my lower energy costs, and delivery has been highly reliable. Thank you, President Trump! And thank you for understanding that no amount of taxes and regulations on the United States will cause the biggest polluters in India and China to reduce their output; it would only harm U.S. jobs and standards of living.
Pink Floyd was actually the first to reach the Dark Side of the Moon.
Belief in "experts" or "omnipotent technology" sounds to me like another lame excuse to give socialism a try. "It didn't work last time, or the time before that, but trust us, this computer that I built is so smart that it can defy the laws of supply and demand!"
I suppose that if a self-driving car will hit a minivan because the car has a thief in it, then you have no reason to trust the self-driving car when YOU are inside.
A sucker is born every minute.
Just charge both Hillary and Ivanka now with violating Espionage Act and be done with it already. Let the chips fall where they may.
Naturally, it was a ruse back then to get Assange to drop his guard. My main hope at this point is that formal charges will get the ball rolling on actual due process. Fortunately, the Deep State usually hates laying its cards on the table, so I'm optimistic that if some authority is required by a court to lay facts and evidence down for all to see, then they'll scurry away and drop the charges.
It's not a crime if it's done outside the country, right?
Probably not. If you were to hack into a bank and transfer the money into your own offshore account, then I'm certain that the country with the bank would have both some law saying that they can extradite you, as well as some treaty with a bunch of other countries that give permission for the extradition. Not that I believe it's okay to charge anyone outside of your country with anything, I'm just saying with certainty that such laws exist.
In this case, it's the tax-competitive country losing money. The tax-competitive country currently collects X. The new EU tax will collect 2X no matter where the company is located. The company moves most of its key employees and tech jobs to the United States, leaving behind a skeleton sales crew to collect sales. The sales group moves to another country with warmer weather. The tax-competitive country gets 0 X, the country with warmer weather gets 0.25 X, and the EU kleptocrats are left scratching their heads wondering "Why don't we have enough money or jobs?" UNLESS the tax-competitive country tells the EU to shove off.
You already tax the tech giants. If there are tech giant employees in your country, then you likely tax their income. And if product sales occur within your country, then that is also taxed. But this new tax isn't about that. Instead it's about taxing the companies no matter where they are located. High tax countries are upset that large tech companies have avoided them, and so they're barely getting any tax money. Some countries are willing to be tax-competitive, and are rightfully worried that if the EU collects taxes no matter where a company is located, then the companies will probably move to some other country, thereby causing the country to lose a large amount of corporate tax.
First, the energy wasnt wasted, unless you think that you know better than everyone else and should be the arbiter of everyone else's energy decisions. Who is to say that a cryptocurrency won't be double or triple the current value in the future? Who is to say i cant prefer $1000 equivalent of a cryptocurrency that i can easily exchange, rather than a $1000 chunk of platinum in my hand that i cant easily exchange? Second, the miners likely paid for their energy fair and square. Third, you sound like someone jealous that they didnt get involved with crypto early. I bet you'd sing a different tune had you mined a bitcoin a few years ago for $500.