Actually, cash and any / all deposits and withdraws whether by check, electronic transaction etc starts "working" every night as it's reconciled with the Federal Reserve (or any nation's Central Bank). The true means that bank deposits start "working" is when a Bank makes a loan, which creates money out of thin air ... when they make a loan, they write a check to you (or deposit funds in your account) and that money from that moment exists. Prior to the loan, it didn't exist. That's how banking works (and why it's a critical step in the prosperity of the economy).

Those transactions as well are reconciled with the Central Banks. Central Banks control the money supply by manipulating interest rates ... higher rates mean loans are harder to make, lower rates mean loans are easier to make. Banks only keep a small portion of their loan portfolio in deposits. It varies but can be below 10% deposits to 90% loans. The asset to loan ratio is also manipulated by Central Banks to control the money supply.

So 100 million in cash and checks puttering around a city in an Armoured Car are not only working, they are enabling the bank to make $900 million (for example) in new loans created out of thin air (the borrower's risk of paying it back is the real currency of banking).

Easy Credit is good for the economy although it also runs the risk of inflation, so they can't just do what they want without repercussions. But it creates money that otherwise would not exist, that money is spent (the old Econ textbooks would say a new dollar is spent 7 times, creating $7 in economic benefit. That multiplier might have changed since I was in college, but not by much and with electronic transactions, because they are so quick, it might even be higher than 7x now).

" ... Uber drivers who had quit over low pay ..."

I realize that laws regarding pay differ in the US, but in Canada, if you quit your job, you are automatically deemed ineligible for EI (Employment Insurance) and your claim will be rejected.

You can still get benefits if you meet certain criteria (were harassed at work and can prove it, for example) but the bar is pretty high. You will have a long (many months) fight on your hands with no guarantee you will be successful, and you will be without income unless you find new work (at which point you would be ineligible for benefits in any case).

Your idea of naval warfare is pretty much an 1980's and earlier situation. The phalanx naval defence system, for example, only fires on close encounter threats, and is fully automated tracking and fire. It IS coming at you. All modern aircraft use IFF (identify friend or foe) AI. And so on. Obviously voice communication is still used extensively in warfare, but ship systems can be set to automated response, with or without human interaction. And note that this particular class of vessel is being replaced; the example I gave is one of aging assets. Anything newer will be far more automated.

I never said "it was connected to the internet"

Yes, the mainframes are located at three separate areas of the ship.

The use of different OSes is a tampering reduction feature.

NATO nations know who the friendlies and the non-aligned military assets, including rogue actors, that are around them. Threat management is determined by the action of other assets ... is that a fighter jet profile heading towards you? Area of detection for aircraft is classified but known to be near 100 miles (for example). Again the actual number of threats that can be monitored simultaneously is classified, but it is known to be "more than 20". And without some form of AI, your fear is justified; with it, maybe not so much.

Further to interoperability with friendlies, Canadian Frigates of this class have spent deployments as part of USN Carrier Task Force(s) in carrier protection role, both as part of threat war games and as full extended deployment.

No other nations have ever (or since) been allowed to participate in that role. By all accounts it performed admirably, being notable for being the only asset that detected and simulated destruction of diesel electric submarine infiltration in at least one exercise. The US began and has now completed a Frigate class program that was in part established due to the performance of the RCN vessel in that role.

Top speed is also classified, but is "more than 30 knots". The ship can, from a standing start, come up to full speed and to a full stop in less than it's length.

So, it's trusted by allies and it works.

I have done a lot of online purchasing, and starting fairly early in the game, before the new millennium, and plenty since. Some years it exceeded five figures.

I only had one problem, where a small vendor was the victim of a php injection attack. I noticed it but it didn't "click" that I was being served a lookalike page to enter my CC details. When the transaction didn't go through, it dawned on me what was going on.

My CC company (VISA) caught the suspicious activity on my card fairly quickly ... the thieves apparently tried three transactions, and they denied the second and third. The first (and when I talked to VISA, they said it was very common) was to pay for web hosting for three months, to a Texas based provider. The other two were in quick succession and originated at different locales, which triggered the fraud alert.

I was issued a new card (new account #) and that was the end of it for me ... I didn't have to pay for the one charge they made. I also alerted the vendor, who was reluctant to believe me, but apparently had the smarts to hire someone who confirmed the php injection and made changes, and later sent me a message thanking me for the alert.

But that was it. Hundreds if not thousands of transactions at every stage of eCommerce development.

Crude forms (as in old technology by modern standards, not as in "ineffective") of AI are already in use, and not just recently either.

The last version of the Canadian frigates (first one hit the water in 1990), which are already being replaced with a newer version, used a set of in-house designed operating systems with triple redundancy (three specific OSes, each of which can operate the ship alone, and three independent networks, etc each of which can operate the ship alone). Although the details are not made public, rumour has it that they are various flavours of UNIX.

One feature of the ship is it can track and target threats (air, sea and subsea) and fire when all personnel are no longer physically capable of operating the ship. As in dead.

Most navies have built similar (and newer) ships since, with technology that operates the same way (including the US, UK, etc).

Sounds like an AI weapon system to me.

It's when an employee has some kind of tenure with the company, so that they can take another's job, and that other person gets laid off.

" ... "A key question for you in this case is whether these patents cover the world wide web," Hadden told jurors. "They do not and that is because IBM did not invent the world wide web." ..."

The patents could easily 'cover the world wide web' in a general sense while at the same time covering only a subset of it. Nor is Groupon a company whose product 'cover[s] the world wide web', it covers a subset of the world wide web.

IBM has no need to prove it 'invent[ed] the world wide web', it only has to prove it invented some processes for eCommerce and received patents for them (whether such patents should have been issued is another story, but none the less, they were granted, so that is a simple fact) and that Groupon has used these patented processes in it's business without obtaining a license authorizing their use.

World Wide Web does not equal eCommerce on the web, nor does eCommerce on the web equal the World Wide Web.

Sound like they have little to offer to defend themselves against the suit., and are trying to deflect the issue they are being sued over. Obviously an armchair assessment, but it looks bad for them to me.

No-one can "multitask". Some people can serially mono-task, switching from one to the other frequently. But you cannot convince your brain to do two tasks that are not pure repetition at the same time, and even when that works, the error rate goes up considerably.

You are under the assumption that it's those with "dirty" cash buying the "special" book. It isn't.

Think about the crime movies you've seen. We can use Scarface (the early 80's version; there are earlier Scarface movies). Tony Montana's henchmen are dragging hockey bags full of cash into the crooked bank, and the crooked banker is buying it at a discount and mixing it with legitimate deposits. Classic currency source deception. But the banker isn't the guy who needs the money "laundered".

I'll give you another example. Here in Canada you can sell winning gambling tickets to certain unscrupulous persons. There is nationwide sports betting through the lottery system. Winning tickets are not particularly large, maybe a few thousand at most; typically a few hundred or less, and a skilled sports gambler can make money at it. So he sells his winning ticket to the previously mentioned suspicious character, at a discount (which is really a premium to the bettor).

Anyone can win at such a game with small amounts of cash, basically pocket money, and wow! I won $487.00! says the criminal. He paid maybe $600 for that ticket, cashes it in, done. Money laundered. Same thing can be done with Video Lottery Terminal tickets (every bar in Canada) and so on. If there is too much cash to launder, he has cronies cash them in, for a smaller cut.

Now lets go back to Amazon's secret book (or set of tools, or whatever ... I've seen the massively inflated prices on all kinds of stuff). Who sells it? The Amazon equivalent of the Banker, the winning gambler, the rube who cashes in chits. Who buys it? Another associate of the actual criminal, who has nothing to tie them into the actual source of the money. What's the motivation? The vigorish between what dirty money is worth and what clean money is worth.

Done.

Isn't going to happen. Adobe was able to convert their owned software model to subscription because professional users are using the software daily. The cost is essentially irrelevant; they'd pay more if asked. And they buy the hardware and the OS necessary to run it, again regardless of cost and again they'd pay more if necessary.

The move to the subscription model, however, seriously dented their hobbyist market. This was preceded by a change in Adobe's longstanding upgrade policy, where owners of previous versions could always upgrade for about $150, regardless of the version spread. So casual users could skip a version or three and still see the value of the latest version. The change was only the previous version could then be upgraded. This had the desired effect for Pro users, who could justify not skipping a version and was essential for preparing them to accept the subscription model that followed (the version is essentially irrelevant in the subscription model; you use what is compatible with your hardware, or the latest version, at the same cost).

Some moved to Photoshop LE but not all, partly because Adobe is very reluctant to eat it's own lunch, so LE is always crippled in some way that a serious user might need. Adobe has always been half-hearted with it's development as a result.

This is an attempt to recover those users, although in my opinion it's already too late. There are numerous very capable and inexpensive apps on mobile platforms, tablets, and on desktop / laptop for casual users. A few, still inexpensive, examples don't take a back seat to Adobe's Pro apps. Marketing might draw a few but that market is over as far as the reputation and allure goes.

With Linux I think the problem is simply the uptake rate is too low to make it viable, and we're not even talking Adobe level stuff. Corel tried and failed to earn enough to make it viable, and although CorelDraw is a quirky and somewhat unstable app, it certainly does the job if you are determined. I don't see any other player trying again, unfortunately for Linux users. Wine or an emulated OS are basically going to be the options going forward, or of course Gimp if it meets your needs.

In addition to my previous comment:

Neither my mother's nor my father's, nor my brother's estates went through probate.

In the case of my father, he bequeathed cash to both his children, via accounts of $10,000, which is some kind of statutory limit. My sister and I had certified cheques in our hands about two weeks after death. The remaining property went to my mother. The estate did not require Probate.

In the case of my mother, who died later, she bequeathed cash disbursement from what remained in her retirement account, which exceeded six figures, to five children and eight nieces and nephews. The estate did not require Probate.

My brother died with no debt, unmarried, and his estate did not require Probate.

What may make Probate necessary is when there are Estate Taxes due, which is a common situation for residents of the US.

In Canada the Executor simply files a final return, which does not need to be professionally filed. It simply covers the period from the last return to the date of death. There are no Estate Taxes in Canada; 100% of your assets can be bequeathed.

I don't know the law / regulations in the UK, but in Canada a will does not automatically require Probate.
Examples:
You name an executor, and are unmarried and died with no debt, or all your property (and it's debt) is bequeathed to a spouse.

I'm pretty sure Henry Ford figured this out 100 years ago. And probably others ...

The technical conversion is a little daunting for the math challenged (5/9 or 9/5 +/- 32) but the back of the envelope math is easy ... double it and add 30 (or to go from F to C, subtract 30 first, then divide by 2).

So 30C is 2x 30 + 30 or 90. Actual conversion? 86F
Or 90F is 90 - 30 = 60 /2 = 30C. Actual conversion? 32.2C

Close enough.