That's not really getting around technology as much as just plowing right through it.
Also, depending on the style of case and lock, breaking the lock could end up damaging the computer to the point of being unusable, and even if that wasn't the case there'd at least be evidence of the tampering so it's not like a kid would be getting away with doing this without being caught.
CC verification is just a "shaming" tactic.... while it may not make a difference to some people, many adults who routinely surf for porn would rather not have anyone else knowing about it.
Whether that is their own problem is irrelevant. One cannot reasonably be dismissive of that group of people without also being dismissive of privacy in general.
And if the VPN doesn't block the "unsuitable" content from being accessed by minors, then the UK will in turn block payments to the VPN if they refuse to institute age-check measures, regardless of the otherwise legal use case for VPN's.
Nobody but your employer and government agencies have any business knowing that number, so there's plenty of people who are of age that wouldn't want to give that information out.
Two, I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but here in Canada, minors usually also have such numbers, and you aren't going to be able to correlate a such a number to anything resembling an exact enough age to know if they are a minor or not.
For all anyone knows, age verification is automatically deemed "not robust enough" as soon as even *one* underage person can access the content, regardless of the measures they employ.
What the fuck is the point of calling an exploit "zero day" when the relevant software hasn't been updated in years anyways?
Zero day used to mean that it came out *before* the main release of whatever it applied to, but if there is no otherwise upcoming release, then it isn't really "before" anything... it's just a previously unknown exploit.
I'm saying they don't endanger anymore than tons of other random sources-- in otherwords I'm saying you prove it's actually worse.
Per capita, it's not... but the reason that it is still worse is because there is no ceiling on the number of people that are voluntarily choosing to not be vaccinated. People who are vulnerable to the disease despite a vaccination being available because they didn't have any choice in the matter are relatively small in number (less than 15% of the population, when you include both people for whom statistically speaking the vaccination would not be 100% effective and the people who cannot get a vaccination because of medical reasons), but the number of people that are voluntarily choosing not to vaccinate is far higher than that
Herd immunity only functions to protect these vulnerable people when overall vaccination rates are very high... typically greater than 90%. . It is worth noting, in fact, that it is often the case the the victims of an outbreak typically include a signifcant number of people who did not have such a choice in their vulnerability... an outbreak that they would not have been exposed to in the first place if a sufficient number of people had been vaccinated for herd immunity to have protected them.
So yes... it is objectively worse when people *choose* to not be vaccinated.
And yes, technically speaking, they don't endanger the people around them any more than any other random vulnerable person, but it is the fact that there is no upper ceiling on the number of them that is the problem.
Honestly, if people who deliberately chose not to vaccinate had always remained well under 10%, it probably never would have been an issue, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If they only endangered themselves by choosing to not being vaccinated, then you'd have a point. And while nobody is arguing that they don't endanger themselves, they *DO* still endanger others as well, and the notion that the only others they endanger are people who chose not to be vaccinated is not anywhere close to accurate.
Well yes.... that's what most flat earthers have always said... that the earth is round, but like a coin or plate, and not a ball. With the north pole at the center of the plate, and the area that is supposedly Antarctica being at the perimeter.
So no... he won't have to move the goalposts of his argument at all.
Of interest, however, is the angle at which the edge of the earth will appear relative to purely horizontal, and that to maintain the geographic distances we know can be measured, it will have to be the case that the horizon is dipping down away from the camera.
To get the entire earth in a single field of view to see its entire shape at once, you have to be quite a bit higher than the Karman line... probably at least 5000 miles up. Of particular note at this altitude is that you only will ever see half of the earth at one time, and unless you are directly over the north pole, the image of the earth that you will see will not resemble the typical flat earth diagram in the slightest.
Leaving aside that I'm pretty sure I said "talk to", not "yell at"... in your particular case, and do not take this in any way to mean that I diminish it or absolve the driver of the vehicle behind you of any responsibility, it was not actually fact that the driver was saying something. regardless of the decibel level, to somebody in the back seat that caused any significant interference with her concentration, but really her emotional state that did so.
Actually, yes you can... or else your boss is a dick. Maybe not using those exact words, but something just as communicative can still be effective. Presumably, you have a boss that wants you to continue to be alive, so I'm not sure why telling your boss you need to concentrate on driving due to some presumably atypical road or traffic conditions should be a problem. Something like "hold on a sec, I need to concentrate" isn't disrespectful at all. If you let the person on the other end know at the beginning of the call that you are driving, they should already be clued in to the possibility from the beginning that you may need to disengage from the conversation without prior warning because of something that is happening on the road, and so this kind of terseness should not be an issue.
Sometimes, I might also add a "I'll call you back when things settle down" if things are really bad and I don't know how long it will take to get back to normal.
If your boss can't handle the fact that you can't necessarily talk to him while you are driving, you need to find another job because that boss clearly does not care if you are dead or alive.
I think that the taxation system could be simpler and more effective if you calculated an effective tax bracket based solely on gross income or revenue, and then calculated the dollar figure for taxes as being the exact same percentage of the income or revenue after all of the deductions had been applied, instead of letting deductions affect what percentage of taxes is owed.
So let's say, for instance, they have to pay a% of the first $x, b% for every dollar between $x and $y, c% for every dollar between dollar $y and $z, and d% for every dollar over $z (presumably a, b, c, and d are escalating figures while x, y, and z are escalating dollar figures, so that the more money you make, the higher your tax bracket, but you would never be caught in a situation where you might be in a higher tax bracket but end up with less money after taxes). In a real taxation system, 'a' might very well 0, so that if you are *very* low income, then you don't end up paying any taxes at all.
Anyways, you calculate the amount of tax that would otherwise be owed as if there absolutely were no deductions based on the above and reduce that amount to a percentage figure, The percentage figure in turn is multiplied by your total income or revenue *AFTER* applying deductions to determine the amount of tax that you actually owe. If one has more deductions, they still pay less tax, but it doesn't change what percentage of what they have left over that has to go the government.
YOU DO NOT ENDANGER OTHERS IF YOU ARE NOT VACCINATED
You realize that this quite literally contradicts what you say literally two sentences later....
Yes, you could carry and spread it to other people WHO ARE NOT VACCINATED.
(emphasis mine) Other people who are not vaccinated are still "others"... whether you endanger yourself in the process is irrelevant.
And not all of these others even had any choice in the matter. You endanger people who could not receive a vaccination for medical reasons, and you endanger those for whom the vaccination was not 100% effective. This is not generally a problem by itself because the number of people who have a legitimate medical reason to not get a vaccination plus the number of people for whom the vaccination would not actually be effective in the event of exposure is quite small, small enough that if they were the only ones vulnerable, the danger to any of them is actually negligible.
Adding choice to be vaccinated or not changes the dynamic of this effective "herd immunity" entirely, and with every additional person that gets ill, the danger to everyone else who was vulnerable rises exponentially. In theory, it wouldn't be a problem if nobody ever contracted the illness in the first place, but as soon as one person does, the more unvaccinated or otherwise vulnerable people there are around them, the more quickly the virus will spread. The fact that it only will tend to affect these otherwise vulnerable people completely ignores the fact that not all of them had a choice in the matter, and in practice while the number of people who might choose to be unvaccinated may tend to outnumber those who did not make a choice to be vulnerable, during an outbreak, it is noteworthy that they rarely outnumber the ones who die, not surprising often owing to the same medical reasons for why they could not have received the vaccination in the first place, or why the vaccination they did receive was not effective.
And while I say the number of these people may be quite small, I only mean so statistically... in absolute terms, the number of people is still actually quite large,. so yes....you *DO* endanger others if you are not vaccinated. At the very least, you can certainly say that you endanger others if you should *choose* to not be vaccinated.
There are some people who literally can't get vaccinations for real medical reasons, and while I'm sure that these people can probably provide proof to show that is the case, I find it interesting that the summary said that "Anyone who resists faces a fine", and not "Anyone without a valid medical exemption who resists faces a fine".
Technically speaking, these people endanger the lives of others too.
And at least in principle, talking on a hands-free phone is not going to be *significantly* different from talking with a passenger in the back seat of car. Some differences may exist due to a passenger possibly being able to react to what is going on around the car as well, but I expect that these would be relatively minor, particularly since visibility from the back seat is generally reduced compared to where the driver sits.
... or more specifically, they are paying what the law states that they owe.
The fact that they apparently properly owe $0 in taxes despite $11b in profits might be a failing in the taxation system, but it doesn't mean they aren't paying what they are legally required to. They are clearly using loopholes and the like to dodge what would otherwise be a considerable tax bill, but just because they are doing that does not mean it is actually illegal.
Instead of appealing to Amazon to pay their taxes, they should instead be appealing to Washington to get the taxation laws changed so that this sort of thing can't continue happen.
It grates on me when they refer to this stuff as holograms as well.
The notion that a hologram is any image which somehow appears to be hovering in real 3D space, and is basically nothing more than an illusion which was invented in the 1860's, is something that has been perpetuated by the media and pop culture recently, and quite honestly, it actually kinda pisses me off.
A hologram is not a two-dimensional image projected onto a sheet of glass hanging in space, nor is it something that simply "looks" like it its three-dimensional, it is an image that actually *IS* three-dimensional... in that when you see if from different angles, you see the image as you would see a physical object at the same angle. When you are close enough to a hologram, the difference between your left eye view and right eye view will be enough that you will perceive real depth, just as if you were looking through a window at some real object just on the other side of it. Technically, a hologram is not even an image at all, but actually just the capturing of a "light field", and when light which is shone on it interacts with that field, it will recreate the image as it originally was when the hologram was made, appearing not simply as a 2-dimensional image, but as three-dimensional one that looks different from different angles just a real object would.
Slashdot Mirror
That's not really getting around technology as much as just plowing right through it.
Also, depending on the style of case and lock, breaking the lock could end up damaging the computer to the point of being unusable, and even if that wasn't the case there'd at least be evidence of the tampering so it's not like a kid would be getting away with doing this without being caught.
That won't stop Nintendo from trying to litigate in any jurisdiction that they can. They *HATE* emulators.
CC verification is just a "shaming" tactic.... while it may not make a difference to some people, many adults who routinely surf for porn would rather not have anyone else knowing about it.
Whether that is their own problem is irrelevant. One cannot reasonably be dismissive of that group of people without also being dismissive of privacy in general.
What about a boot password and physical case lock?
And if the VPN doesn't block the "unsuitable" content from being accessed by minors, then the UK will in turn block payments to the VPN if they refuse to institute age-check measures, regardless of the otherwise legal use case for VPN's.
A couple of other things...
Nobody but your employer and government agencies have any business knowing that number, so there's plenty of people who are of age that wouldn't want to give that information out.
Two, I'm not sure how it is in the UK, but here in Canada, minors usually also have such numbers, and you aren't going to be able to correlate a such a number to anything resembling an exact enough age to know if they are a minor or not.
For all anyone knows, age verification is automatically deemed "not robust enough" as soon as even *one* underage person can access the content, regardless of the measures they employ.
Exactly.... "prior to".
This software is not being actively updated anymore. There is no notion of being before *anything* here.
What the fuck is the point of calling an exploit "zero day" when the relevant software hasn't been updated in years anyways?
Zero day used to mean that it came out *before* the main release of whatever it applied to, but if there is no otherwise upcoming release, then it isn't really "before" anything... it's just a previously unknown exploit.
Per capita, it's not... but the reason that it is still worse is because there is no ceiling on the number of people that are voluntarily choosing to not be vaccinated. People who are vulnerable to the disease despite a vaccination being available because they didn't have any choice in the matter are relatively small in number (less than 15% of the population, when you include both people for whom statistically speaking the vaccination would not be 100% effective and the people who cannot get a vaccination because of medical reasons), but the number of people that are voluntarily choosing not to vaccinate is far higher than that
Herd immunity only functions to protect these vulnerable people when overall vaccination rates are very high... typically greater than 90%. . It is worth noting, in fact, that it is often the case the the victims of an outbreak typically include a signifcant number of people who did not have such a choice in their vulnerability... an outbreak that they would not have been exposed to in the first place if a sufficient number of people had been vaccinated for herd immunity to have protected them.
So yes... it is objectively worse when people *choose* to not be vaccinated.
And yes, technically speaking, they don't endanger the people around them any more than any other random vulnerable person, but it is the fact that there is no upper ceiling on the number of them that is the problem.
Honestly, if people who deliberately chose not to vaccinate had always remained well under 10%, it probably never would have been an issue, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
If they only endangered themselves by choosing to not being vaccinated, then you'd have a point. And while nobody is arguing that they don't endanger themselves, they *DO* still endanger others as well, and the notion that the only others they endanger are people who chose not to be vaccinated is not anywhere close to accurate.
Is that a word now?
What the fuck is wrong with "monitor" or "observe"? Particularly given the typical dictionary definition of "surveillance".
English is weird.
Well yes.... that's what most flat earthers have always said... that the earth is round, but like a coin or plate, and not a ball. With the north pole at the center of the plate, and the area that is supposedly Antarctica being at the perimeter.
So no... he won't have to move the goalposts of his argument at all.
Of interest, however, is the angle at which the edge of the earth will appear relative to purely horizontal, and that to maintain the geographic distances we know can be measured, it will have to be the case that the horizon is dipping down away from the camera.
To get the entire earth in a single field of view to see its entire shape at once, you have to be quite a bit higher than the Karman line... probably at least 5000 miles up. Of particular note at this altitude is that you only will ever see half of the earth at one time, and unless you are directly over the north pole, the image of the earth that you will see will not resemble the typical flat earth diagram in the slightest.
Do you have any suggestions on proving *specific* people as responsible for an outbreak of a preventable disease?
Leaving aside that I'm pretty sure I said "talk to", not "yell at"... in your particular case, and do not take this in any way to mean that I diminish it or absolve the driver of the vehicle behind you of any responsibility, it was not actually fact that the driver was saying something. regardless of the decibel level, to somebody in the back seat that caused any significant interference with her concentration, but really her emotional state that did so.
Actually, yes you can... or else your boss is a dick. Maybe not using those exact words, but something just as communicative can still be effective. Presumably, you have a boss that wants you to continue to be alive, so I'm not sure why telling your boss you need to concentrate on driving due to some presumably atypical road or traffic conditions should be a problem. Something like "hold on a sec, I need to concentrate" isn't disrespectful at all. If you let the person on the other end know at the beginning of the call that you are driving, they should already be clued in to the possibility from the beginning that you may need to disengage from the conversation without prior warning because of something that is happening on the road, and so this kind of terseness should not be an issue.
Sometimes, I might also add a "I'll call you back when things settle down" if things are really bad and I don't know how long it will take to get back to normal.
If your boss can't handle the fact that you can't necessarily talk to him while you are driving, you need to find another job because that boss clearly does not care if you are dead or alive.
I think that the taxation system could be simpler and more effective if you calculated an effective tax bracket based solely on gross income or revenue, and then calculated the dollar figure for taxes as being the exact same percentage of the income or revenue after all of the deductions had been applied, instead of letting deductions affect what percentage of taxes is owed.
So let's say, for instance, they have to pay a% of the first $x, b% for every dollar between $x and $y, c% for every dollar between dollar $y and $z, and d% for every dollar over $z (presumably a, b, c, and d are escalating figures while x, y, and z are escalating dollar figures, so that the more money you make, the higher your tax bracket, but you would never be caught in a situation where you might be in a higher tax bracket but end up with less money after taxes). In a real taxation system, 'a' might very well 0, so that if you are *very* low income, then you don't end up paying any taxes at all.
Anyways, you calculate the amount of tax that would otherwise be owed as if there absolutely were no deductions based on the above and reduce that amount to a percentage figure, The percentage figure in turn is multiplied by your total income or revenue *AFTER* applying deductions to determine the amount of tax that you actually owe. If one has more deductions, they still pay less tax, but it doesn't change what percentage of what they have left over that has to go the government.
Often a person in the back seat has a negligible view of what is in front of the vehicle.
And of course, it is particularly unlikely that children are going to be paying much attention to the road either.
Or do you think that a parent shouldn't ever talk to their children while they are driving?
You realize that this quite literally contradicts what you say literally two sentences later....
(emphasis mine) Other people who are not vaccinated are still "others"... whether you endanger yourself in the process is irrelevant.
And not all of these others even had any choice in the matter. You endanger people who could not receive a vaccination for medical reasons, and you endanger those for whom the vaccination was not 100% effective. This is not generally a problem by itself because the number of people who have a legitimate medical reason to not get a vaccination plus the number of people for whom the vaccination would not actually be effective in the event of exposure is quite small, small enough that if they were the only ones vulnerable, the danger to any of them is actually negligible.
Adding choice to be vaccinated or not changes the dynamic of this effective "herd immunity" entirely, and with every additional person that gets ill, the danger to everyone else who was vulnerable rises exponentially. In theory, it wouldn't be a problem if nobody ever contracted the illness in the first place, but as soon as one person does, the more unvaccinated or otherwise vulnerable people there are around them, the more quickly the virus will spread. The fact that it only will tend to affect these otherwise vulnerable people completely ignores the fact that not all of them had a choice in the matter, and in practice while the number of people who might choose to be unvaccinated may tend to outnumber those who did not make a choice to be vulnerable, during an outbreak, it is noteworthy that they rarely outnumber the ones who die, not surprising often owing to the same medical reasons for why they could not have received the vaccination in the first place, or why the vaccination they did receive was not effective.
And while I say the number of these people may be quite small, I only mean so statistically... in absolute terms, the number of people is still actually quite large,. so yes....you *DO* endanger others if you are not vaccinated. At the very least, you can certainly say that you endanger others if you should *choose* to not be vaccinated.
There are some people who literally can't get vaccinations for real medical reasons, and while I'm sure that these people can probably provide proof to show that is the case, I find it interesting that the summary said that "Anyone who resists faces a fine", and not "Anyone without a valid medical exemption who resists faces a fine".
Technically speaking, these people endanger the lives of others too.
And at least in principle, talking on a hands-free phone is not going to be *significantly* different from talking with a passenger in the back seat of car. Some differences may exist due to a passenger possibly being able to react to what is going on around the car as well, but I expect that these would be relatively minor, particularly since visibility from the back seat is generally reduced compared to where the driver sits.
So it's an admission that Amazon is better than they are?
The fact that they apparently properly owe $0 in taxes despite $11b in profits might be a failing in the taxation system, but it doesn't mean they aren't paying what they are legally required to. They are clearly using loopholes and the like to dodge what would otherwise be a considerable tax bill, but just because they are doing that does not mean it is actually illegal.
Instead of appealing to Amazon to pay their taxes, they should instead be appealing to Washington to get the taxation laws changed so that this sort of thing can't continue happen.
It grates on me when they refer to this stuff as holograms as well.
The notion that a hologram is any image which somehow appears to be hovering in real 3D space, and is basically nothing more than an illusion which was invented in the 1860's, is something that has been perpetuated by the media and pop culture recently, and quite honestly, it actually kinda pisses me off.
A hologram is not a two-dimensional image projected onto a sheet of glass hanging in space, nor is it something that simply "looks" like it its three-dimensional, it is an image that actually *IS* three-dimensional... in that when you see if from different angles, you see the image as you would see a physical object at the same angle. When you are close enough to a hologram, the difference between your left eye view and right eye view will be enough that you will perceive real depth, just as if you were looking through a window at some real object just on the other side of it. Technically, a hologram is not even an image at all, but actually just the capturing of a "light field", and when light which is shone on it interacts with that field, it will recreate the image as it originally was when the hologram was made, appearing not simply as a 2-dimensional image, but as three-dimensional one that looks different from different angles just a real object would.
Yes, holograms work.
What this guy is using, however, is not a hologram.
I've seen real holograms, and they are utterly amazing.