Because Bob can't legally give you permission to spam Alice and Mary.

I don't think you need any permission to send someone an email at all.

But yeah, I'd absolutely never agree to those terms. I'm willing to exchange money for a ride. I'm not willing to exchange money AND let you spam my friends. I'm not even willing to exchange spamming my friends if you give me the ride for free, Uber.

Exactly. Or who assumes that SLAs are immutable laws of nature, not promises.

Sometimes it involves adding capabilities to those services that you didn't have in your own data center, like geographic redundancy.

A lot of nontechnical people don't understand that "moving services to the cloud" is sometimes precisely moving services to someone else's servers in someone else's rack in someone else's datacenter(s).

Nothing brings a species together like breaking the moon into lots of tiny bits and dropping them on the planet we live on.

The claim is that the insured made a bunch of medical records available to the public on the internet, presumably by accident. Unless that happened before the policy was in place, due diligence wouldn't have revealed a mistake that was going to be made later.

There does seem to be a valid business need for "my employee screwed up" insurance. Companies that want that kind of coverage should probably make sure that's what they're buying.

They weren't hacked. They accidentally put a bunch of medical records online according to http://www.noozhawk.com/articl... (linked from the article). If they bought an insurance policy that only pays out if they follow "minimum required practices", and they didn't, then of course it shouldn't pay out.

You're missing the whole "innocent until proven guilty" part. He doesn't have to prove he wasn't driving. They have to prove he was. That's how it works here. Well, in theory, anyway...

After all, the school organized and funded (invested) these events.

They most certainly did not. I checked, and that school district and therefore that school is funded by tax revenue. Taxpayers funded those events. The school employees organized them, yes, but because they were paid by taxpayers to do so.

Part of the reason people are starting to insist on body cameras is we don't trust the police. Because increasingly the police are not trustworthy, and don't know or care what the law says.

Well, mostly. I've been arguing with people for years on this. For so long, many people had this default notion of the police as the good guys. This is very much the default in traffic court. If the police say you did it and you say you didn't, you're guilty. People need to understand that putting on a badge doesn't change your morality. Some people are trustworthy, and some people are not. Police are people, and we don't have a perfect process to separate the trustworthy from those who aren't, so inevitably sometimes we hire police who aren't. Just like every other profession.

I'm well over 18, and care because I saw this sort of thing when I was a kid. It was wrong then, and it's wrong now. The fact that it doesn't impact me directly means I care less than the student in question and less than when I was in school, but I still think this sort of abuse of authority should never go unchallenged.

I think you found the worst possible answer to this question.

"Elon, I finished the task you gave me! I haven't actually done what you wanted, I just redefined the terms so I was done before I started."

I usually say asking such questions in an interview is a terrible idea, but I'd honestly disqualify anyone who gave an answer like this.

I would MUCH rather pay a state tax on miles driven elsewhere than be tracked so the state knows when I'm driving elsewhere.

I don't want government internet because my government thinks it's ok to read my email (and everything else). Letting them be the ISP makes it that much easier.

That said, I don't see any problem with letting local governments, with the consent of their citizens, provide that service any more than I think it's a problem for them to provide trash service, water service, etc. Internet service at this point should follow a utility model. All I want is a pipe.

Just don't make the public option the only one. Monopolies can be bad no matter who runs them.

If you so much as ask for ID, a vocal group of people around here start shouting voter suppression.

A big part of the problem is that it isn't just a technical problem. It's a social one.