580 karma · joined November 8, 2019
>“Facebook Ireland and Facebook’s other foreign affiliates - not Facebook US - led the high-risk, and ultimately successful, international effort to sell Facebook ads,” the company said in a pre-trial memorandum.
What a fraud.
How does that Gandhi quote go: Be the change you want to see in the World... or was it pay for the change you want to see in the World?
You think Gandhi would have effected the change he did by paying others to engage in acts of civil disobedience? Paid others to break imperial laws and get arrested? Paid others to engage in hunger strikes?
Gandhi was a western educated and trained lawyer, but he boycotted western clothing and adopted the dhoti...it is not just a symbol (or virtue signaling) but it was a necessary act. Whereas $10B from Bezos for Climate change appears to be just a symbol, because he continues to head a Company that facilitates unbridled consumerism and global consumption and he seems unwilling to make personal sacrifices to his lavish lifestyle.
I think a major part of this, as applied to SpaceX and Boeing, is historically NASA micromanaged their contractors on cost+ based contracts. That is where companies like Boeing thrived, tell Boeing exactly what to do, they can do it and at the same time they can jack up the costs so cost+ is as lucrative as possible.
Now that contracting has changed and NASA no longer micromanages but just give the contractors top down goals within a given budget, we see how bad legacy contractors like Boeing are when not micromanaged, and given budgets, rather than cost+ contracts.
I fully understand that. The thing you are missing is that by ignoring act of cyber warfare from a foreign military and/or treating acts of war by a foreign military as a domestic criminal case, escalates the risk of causing acts of war much larger than if they were to be nipped in the bud now.
>As an Iraq combat vet who has spent quite a bit of time trying to understand these subjects, my general thought is that I really dislike so many armchair quarterbacks speculating and being so eager to throw away others lives
I trust you understand there are many uses of force that do not result in lost lives. The very nature of my argument is that the actions of China's military is an act of war and use of force...yet no lives were lost. As I said we should respond proportionately as authorized by the UN Charter and international law...I am not suggesting WW3, nukes or throwing away lives as has been suggested by countless people in this thread.
Just as much as I am admittedly "speculating" that treating cyber warfare by a foreign military will result in escalated attacks...it is also a speculation to suggest China will deescalate their cyber warfare against us.
So the question would fall to you is the US strategy of treating cyber warfare by a foreign military as crimes going to deescalate China's attacks here?
Consider the US Seal Team military operating in Pakistan where Bin Laden was killed. That was use of armed force, we infringed on Pakistani territorial sovereignty, conducted a military operation and even killed a couple people...I hope you understand that this example of using armed force is not the equivalent of "going to war."
It may not seem like a distinction to some, but I think there is a difference from hacking by an intelligence agency and directly by a military. Now if you disagree, that is fine, but also each hack would need to be looked at on the merits to determine what would be a proportionate response, if any.
Well not exactly. One was a state sponsored military act of cyber warfare that indiscriminately targeted an entire populace and infrastructure (i.e. a military infringed on the sovereignty of an entire nation state). The other was a targeted intelligence operation.
>Your suggestion is disingenuous at best and, I'm sorry to say so, terribly blind to the reality of the world...
Being from Europe I would assume you would be very familiar with the dangers of failing to act when one military infringes on the sovereignty of another. Though I guess we will see either China will continue hacking and escalate their hacking or they won't...if I were a betting man I would happily take you up on such a bet that China will continue and escalate its military hacking against all nation states.
I believe it raised to a level above spying and intelligence gathering. It was a state sponsored military act of cyber warfare that infringed on the US' territorial sovereignty.
>The appropriate response would be more akin to hacking back into China's social credit scoring company and snooping around.
The purpose of a proportionate response to military acts under the UN Charter and the use of force and armed conflict is not so much "an eye for an eye" (i.e. you hack me, I hack you), but to put an end to the military operations infringing on your sovereignty ...for example, assuming you believe Iraq had WMDs and chemical weapons or response is not to create stock piles of our own chemical weapons.
I specifically said "respond with the use of force as permitted by the UN Charter and international laws and norms."
It seems clear the people responding talking about all out war and "end of human civilization" don't have much experience with the UN Charter, security council and international laws and norms for the use of force. Generally the legal terms of art I used.
The idea is a proportional response to deescalate future cyber warfare attacks...not end all of humanity.
I would venture to guess I have significantly more experience and knowledge with the UN Charter Article 2(4), the UN Security Council and the international laws on the use of armed force than you.
No one said anything about "go to war", the Use of armed force is not "going to war". The UN Charter permits the use of armed force in response to acts that infringe on the sovereignty of any nation by military action.
To bury ones head in the sand at this point in history to foreign military acts against a populace is inviting more invasive and damaging acts of cyber warfare. Do you honestly think China is going to say we got away with this we should deescalate?
I was very careful to specify "respond with the use of force as permitted by the UN Charter and international laws and norms." In other words the UN Charter only permits a response in proportion to the offense. I do think an act of cyber warfare may legally allow us of "armed force" but it would likely have to be limited to targeting the installations where the attacks were coming from (but realistically it is a new and undeveloped area of law with respect to cyber warfare).
The problem in my opinion with failing to act is we signal that there will be no military response, and these acts of cyber warfare escalate to hacking power grids or other infrastructure than results in indirect lose of life. Then due to political pressure all out war becomes more realistic.
If the US can identify the individual hackers, then they should be able to identify the physical location from which the military committed the acts of war and respond with the use of force as permitted by the UN Charter and international laws and norms. By responding with grand jury indictments the US sets a terrible and dangerous precedent and is telling foreign governments the US will not do anything in response to military based acts of cyber warfare.
Or to encourage users spending $500-$1,000 to upgrade their slowing devices.
>Apple should just have phones in France run full clock at all times to comply with this regulation.
Why does tech always seem to have the attitude of "we know whats best for you" and if you challenge us we will make things as bad as possible just to prove our point? Is there not a common sense approach of giving users the ability to throttle their own devices to manage power/battery trade-off?
These scooter companies, at least in my city, will collect and dump their scooters on the busiest sidewalks and bike paths (blocking the entire walkway and path) for the sole purpose of free advertising to large groups of runners/bikers.
Its not about "space being wasted" in fact it is the opposite, it is not just obnoxious and illegal in many cases, it is dangerous. I have seen multiple runners and bikers collide with these things. I can't just start dumping ATM machines, vending machines or billboards on public walkways/bike paths, why should these scooter companies get to do that?
US born children have parents that more likely than not are indebted; whereas, even poor immigrants are unlikely to be indebted. It likely follows children whose parents not in debt, no matter how poor, likely have higher rates of upward mobility than children of indebted parents. There are very real glass ceilings in the US (having the lowest socio-economic mobility of all 1st world countries), so you are likely to raise from below the poverty line to just above, but if you are already above their isn't much likelihood of going up further.
That experience (and I suppose being a lawyer who constantly thinks about liability) makes me hope all these companies fail. 1) I don't like the "littering" of scooters all over city sidewalks/bike paths (that is dangerous in and of itself and should be illegal); and 2) renting these things without helmets I think goes well beyond negligence.
Ideally in 2008 all the "banks" should have gone bankrupt and the vacuum should have been filled with credit unions, instead lawmakers gave the banks $2T as a reward for ruining the US economy so they could float their own debts instead of declaring bankruptcy and enough so they could buy up their competitors to further consolidate the marketplace.
Just offering an unregistered security to the public (without any exceptions applying) is a violation.
But that doesn't really matter, you can adopt concepts and designs from 3rd parties (including competitors) so long as the same is not protected.
The "rounded corners" was patented and infringement of the patent was a count on the lawsuit, and Samsung was found liable for infringing that patent.
What is unfortunate and "twisted" is claiming a research university is a patent troll. Research universities develop and patent new technology all the time, you could say its part of their business model, and historically they are happy to license their patents to commercial entities to take to market...very rarely do universities actually develop their new inventions for commercial purposes. Most would consider it a win-win to shift costs of development to universities, not universities being patent trolls.
You will hear "Family" plenty in the movie ("never tell anyone outside the family what you're thinking") even in the article, the mystery caller who threatens not to make the movie says:
>“Get the fk outta town. Don’t shoot no movie about the family here. Got it?”
No but Apple's patent for rounded corners didn't help Samsung engineers from creating their devices...and yet Apple filed the patent and sued Samsung for patent infringement.
Caltech should be championed for trolling a troll.
As in you don't understand the need for the anti-kickback statute?
I am not hear to defend it, but I happened to be an attorney on a Qui Tam case (i.e. whistle blower case, which are some of the judgments in the US) revolving around anti-kickback and stark laws.
In short "Russian money" was being funneled into the US to set up pharmacies in Russian immigrant neighborhoods, the engaged in some real bad behavior (patients didn't pick up Rx, they would still bill medicare, then they would relabel and fill future Rx with the already paid med and get a 2nd payment for the meds...other acts included cash payments to doctors to send patients their way). They also engaged in what I felt was not "bad" behavior, they would deliver meds and give the patients a "goody bag" with things from the old country (caviar, hometown news papers, etc...). One pharmacist noticed their supervisor the acts violated the law, and he was fired in retaliation (he is the whistle blower). Before the lawsuit CVS bought the Russian backed chain for well over $100M.
I myself never thought the free goody bag was so outrageous and even think that it is good customer service, but its still unlawful. The law has nothing to do with the type of Rx, or really the Rx at all, its about the unlawful bribe/rebate.
Ethically yes, but legally, the issue may be more related to the payment, which I am guessing is a violation of the anti-kickback statute.
The necessity is a result of big pharma lobbying activity, there is generally no medical necessity for opioids.
Big pharma money ensures things like marijuana remain a class 1 narcotic at the federal level meaning there is no known medical uses of the "drug." This allows pharma regulatory capture for their opiates which makes doctors, pharma, pharmacies and insurance money, so it simply becomes the norm to prescribe patients these highly addictive and euphoria inducing painkillers. So long as the patient remains insured, can pay and claims they are in pain, the Doctor will give them their drugs.
One astonishing fact is nearly 90 of the top 100 opioid prescribing doctors are in Florida, and 85% of all oxycodone a highly addictive variety of opioid therapy is prescribed in Florida.
Exactly that is why the doctor specifically writes a 30 day so they come back in and can check their numbers.
>Insurance companies do a lot of bad stuff, but you seem to have invented a whole new class of things that they just don't do.
When you hear the term consolidation of the healthcare market this is what they are talking about. There are numerous lawsuits right now by doctors against insurers for dropping them, illegally, from their networks and sending their patients to new providers/practices that are owned by the insurers. You can find any number of those lawsuits, if you cared, but here is an article on the practice of insurers buying providers (to control all aspects of their costs), you have insurance A, odds are you are only able to go to a doctor practice/hospital owned by the insurer.
https://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20180602/NEWS/18060...
>There is no bonus for 30 day to 90 conversion
You are wrong, and it is clear you have never even heard of Medication Therapy Management (MTM) or OutcomesMTM. Walk into any big pharmacy (walmart, cvs, walgreens) and ask the pharmacist about OutcomesMTM and MTM generally. Or use this link to a OutcomesMTM report and learn about it http://www.outcomesmtm.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016MT...
>"Today, more than half of U.S. pharmacies are active in OutcomesMTM programs, earning revenue for their clinical services while helping healthcare payors reach their goals."
>Each year, OutcomesMTM recognizes pharmacies and pharmacy chain organizations with exceptional performance in delivering MTM services. Top MTM Center and Top Chain awards are based on the organization’s overall effectiveness in delivering CMRs and resolving drug therapy problems through TIPs
Well imagine your doctor gives you a Rx, you go to fill and the insurer tells the pharmacist to ask doctor to change it. If the doctor disagrees (for whatever reason) the insurer may drop your doctor from their network, then you will be stuck going to a doctor who does whatever the insurer asks.
If you feel there is no conflict there or that isn't adversarial that is fine...in my experience both patients who lose their doctor and the doctors themselves disagree.