Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller Fraud is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Using a monopoly position to stifle others is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Me driving fast does not cause harm by itself. If i lose control while speeding, hit a vile bicyclist, then i am causing harm.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Fraud is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Using a monopoly position to stifle others is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Me driving fast does not cause harm by itself. If i lose control while speeding, hit a vile bicyclist, then i am causing harm.
But you are causing harm from the additional hazard you create while drying recklessly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 That is a terrible idea and how people go bankrupt. Ill just hold on to my Eastman Kodak shares...
WHY SHOULDNT THE FINE BE 100% OF GOOGLE'S PROFIT FOR A YEAR?Why should there be? Answer it in reverse. I've made it really clear, I though, why it should never be like that. If you think that it should be, explain the logic for why it should be 100%. And why not 1% or 1000%. How is your 100% number not absolutely arbitrary?
Perhaps 100% is arbitrary. 1% is a joke that accomplishes nothing. 100% would send meaningful financial punishment to every person that owns a share of the company and agreed with the illegal behavior, which should be the desired outcome if prison is unacceptable for corporations.
-
@DustinB3403 There is no harm if i get to my destination without crashing or hitting anybody.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 There is no harm if i get to my destination without crashing or hitting anybody.
Yes there is.
-
No there isnt. What harm? What hazard?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No there isnt. What harm? What hazard?
You're making the area that much more dangerous to pedestrians and other commuters. That in it's self is risk and a hazard.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also what I believe many people here are overlooking is that there can be a few investors who own the majority share of a company like Google, and decide to do things illegally because they have the most say.
An investor with less than .01% stock in a company, has a say, and its shut up and let us run the way we want, or sell your stock.
I've definitely not forgotten that and assume it in every post and feel that it is 100% in line with all of my logic. Their punishment is tied to the size of their involvement.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Fraud is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Using a monopoly position to stifle others is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Me driving fast does not cause harm by itself. If i lose control while speeding, hit a vile bicyclist, then i am causing harm.
That's not actually true. What if the fraud also helps the final customers? There isn't necessarily an innocent, injured party. And is it fraud to promote yourself? And often monopolies are chosen for efficiency. It's more like speeding than you think. But it didn't risk human life.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No there isnt. What harm? What hazard?
So you think speeding laws are an attack on citizens and don't exist to make the roads safer? What if we feel that way about anti-trust?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 There is no harm if i get to my destination without crashing or hitting anybody.
This is based on the assumption that risk is not harm.
Also, we can say there was no harm since people still bought stuff from Google.
So... no need for a fine.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Perhaps 100% is arbitrary. 1% is a joke that accomplishes nothing.
How are you determining that? 1% is pretty significant in business, very, very significant. And this was 12% of profits. That's FREAKING ENORMOUS.
-
Keep in mind, this is a local violation. What if this happened in Kenya or only in Montenegro. Would you want the same 100% fine for such a tiny infraction? Why would the EU fine 100% of revenues for something so local and trivial? What doing so be license to do anything else? Wouldn't that just teach companies to be MORE risky and do this MORE often, because if any little thing might hit you for the max, you need to go high or go home. Make the fine too big, and getting fined stops being a threat.
-
Also, this is a record fine. This is the exact opposite of significant. It actually sounds unbelievably over the top as it is. Think about all of Google's revenue, did they deserve to lose so much for something so small that likely affected no one?
-
Global ransomware attack causes turmoil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40416611 -
Coins thrown into plane engine by elderly passenger for 'luck'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-40421811 -
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
Global ransomware attack causes turmoil
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40416611Not sure about everyone else but this part of the article made my bum twitch a little on reading:-
"Chernobyl nuclear power plant has also had to monitor radiation levels manually after its Windows-based sensors were shut down." -
'Vaccine' created for huge cyber-attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-40427907 -
This post is deleted! -
Exploding Fidget Spinners
