If you build a system that can rip off limbs, and then downmod the forces applied until it doesn't do that anymore, you can get realism and ratings both. Step 1 is optional.
Opposing personal experience - I've been scraping my bank data (scotia) for about a year now, haven't had any serious problems (there seems to be some kind of signin counter that thresholds and then forces secret questions to be reset, but that's it).
That fourth one is the killer. Regardless of its truth or falsehood, it gives everyone an out because none of the interesting consequences of the first three have to happen.
Perhaps the proper move would have been to surveil the malware without revealing that you know of it. Could prove/falsify #4, or implicate PD conclusively if #1.
If nothing else, you can feed the cash into transactions that would otherwise not have been. All your groceries are now paid with bitcoin cash, and the difference can be applied to buying more bitcoins. There's a ceiling there, but unless business is booming, I bet you never hit it.
Sure, the assertion is fallacious. Pointing that out doesn't actually change anything, though. You can't force intimacy (and sharing otherwise private/sensitive information can definitely qualify if you feel that way) where it's not welcome. The 'problem' (if you see it as one) is that sdrothrock's mother doesn't see them as an ally on this front. That's what'd need to change.
Is there any particular reason we haven't included the "incompetent, erroneously concluded that NK is not responsible, and is lying about it" quadrant? It's always nice to fill out the last box of the square.
See, my first thought about this was that it was an impulse control thing- people fail at saving money because somehow it always gets spent, and this solves that problem.
Except, you're exactly right- the stuff that the money gets spent on will frequently be wildly more important than the sofa. It should be saved, and then it should be spent on the more important stuff. And then you never get a sofa, but at least your transmission works and your kids aren't eating ramen six days a week.
My own anecdata suggests that while there may be a lot of back-and-forth, it's very free-form, rather than strictly codified and formalized. I assumed this was what was meant.
Exactly this. If employers only have claim to ideas you have during work hours, you can claim to have thought to directly-work-related-idea-X outside that window (ie, in the shower), and therefore be justified in selling it to their competitor. It's just simpler for employers to make a blanket claim on everything and then fight things on a case-by-case basis in the other direction if need be.
I think there are differing expectations of privacy. I don't think there's anything strange or even untoward about employers tracking internet activity on their machines and their networks. It would not surprise me to be sacked for eg. browsing porn while at work, even if I did it from my phone or laptop instead of a company computer.
Propaganda tricks work, though. It follows that in order to be an effective leaker, one must be more or less impervious to muck-raking. Which is neither fair nor sane, but strikes me as plausible.
Monetary compensation for something like that is hard, though. There's no societal standard on the value of a person's day, and it opens the possibility of abuse on the other end (professional interview-taker). In practice, there is an intangible compensation, in the form of a reasonable expectation of being hired.
It's a cultural battle. Subconscious mindshare is the name of the game. Whether people are or a can be convinced at a conscious level is more or less irrelevant- the impulses that go before rational thought are what count.
Reading paragraphs 2 & 3, the I thought that it was stated explicitly, though it seems to be simply implied. He was looking through stacks of scans from serial killers and alzheimers patients and family members, and found one that was "obviously pathological"
Gotta point out, the whole cool thing about this is that he initially diagnosed himself using concrete patterns in brain scans. So, maybe the term "psychopath" is vague and handwavey, but there're real brain patterns which correlate well to groups like serial killers, that can be identified in brain scans. We might need a less loaded term to talk about these patterns with.
Isn't the purpose of the law to shape society into what we collectively think it should be like?
Under this reading, the mechanics of how you choose what to punish don't really matter, so long as the result is closer to what you want.
Granted, we might want to live in a society where thoughtcrime isn't a thing, and this might shape the laws we create, but collective processes can be considerably less rational than that.