Now my "disable advertising" checkbox doesn't work.
Now my "disable advertising" checkbox doesn't work.
Why would a wipe my data function need the ability to read a file and transmit it over the modem? Why would it need a download this and save it here function?
That doesn't bother me.
What bothers me is that Google is constantly changing things and if you don't like it, tough.
Vocational Schooling or we call them apprenticeships.
In general training to do particular work that doesn't require a college degree to do such work.
A lot of this stuff our college system as absorbed into its structure (Usually in a 2 year degree) but it really shouldn't be.
Jobs such as:
Electricians, Plumbers, Mechanics, Barbers, Truck Drivers, Welders... would quality.
However other job professions which are covered in colleges could be done too. Like: Nursing, Day Care, even Programming, and other IT jobs.
Sure you need training, the jobs may pay well, however you really don't need the full robust education of a college degree.
American Schools are made to push kids into college. Colleges are made to push people into Grad School Grad school is designed to get PHD students, PHD students are prepped to be Professors. Now this isn't bad and there is a lot of good work as a side effect that is going on, however people want job skills to get a job. Right now our culture is saying you need a college education, so they get one. Because a college education is needed for a basic quality of life, that means the standards to get there have been lowered.
But they don't have any such thing. That's the crux of the suit. They present the authorization in such a way that the person believes they are authorizing one single payment. In fact, Google takes it as authorizing that payment and infinite more payments for the next 30 minutes. No meeting of the minds.
So all Google really has is a clear record that you authorized one single payment.
Here's your car analogy. You take your car in for an oil change. The mechanic says it will need a new air filter as well and that's going to be $15. You say OK, sign on the bottom line and go get lunch. When you get back you find that he has the engine out of the car and partially disassembled. He explains that he decided it needs a complete re-build and since you signed, you agreed to accept the additional $5000 cost. Can't imagine why you're complaining, that was clearly indicated on page 243 of the microdot affixed to the authorization form.
Perhaps "not expected to" would be a better phrasing, or even "are not yet developmentally capable of". Most adults ARE developmentally/neurologically capable of knowing the consequences of their actions even if they fail to utilize that capacity. For those adults with developmental challenges, they often do get special treatment.
Sometimes the animal adaptation proves to be a problem for us (and the animals). For example, not everyone is terribly happy that coyotes have adapted to suburban living. A lot of people aren't that happy that bears have adapted to food locked in small cars.
It is more like,
People like his ideas, They read 1/2 of the recommendation, then they propose it to the government who only gets 1/2 of that proposal, who then under pressure implements it using 1/2 of the proposal. This may go down a few levels only leaving the Title "Common Core" as remaining.
Because there is this impression of the Failing Schools and we expect someone else to fix it.
However there are a few issues with that.
1. Many of the most successful countries with test results, have a school system where only the best continue on to more schooling the rest go to vocational schools. Meaning our system were we expect our kids to go school no matter how much they suck.
2. The issues of kids learning ability isn't as much as the schools as everyone else things. We got factors such as Parents, Culture, Environment, and the Child's own self interest to learn which are more major factors.
If the Parents don't care how well their children do then they won't push temselfs to learn even in the best of schools.
If the culture doesn't value education then the kid won't either
If the environment is in a way (such as gang activity/domestic abuse/starvation etc...) where education is much lower on a child's priorities then they will not focus much.
3. A lot of these other factors are part of a catch 22 problem where education can help fix the above problems, however those problems prevent education from improving.
But these aren't unauthorized follow-up payments, a person you are responsible for and have logged in with your credit card credentials is sitting and making actual purchases.
I doubt a court would see it this way. I'm sure it wasn't the intent of the account owner to authorize his kid to make any purchases.
Suppose a 10 year old walks up to a cashier at a Walmart, dumps 50 candy bars on the belt, and hands the cashier a credit card with no adult in sight. The cashier rings it up and charges the card. The kid opens all the candy and gives it away to friends, eats it, whatever. Later the adult discovers that the kid took his card out of his wallet when he wasn't looking and complains to his credit card company.
The fact that the kid had the card in no way authorizes its use. In fact, a court would laugh at a cashier not questioning the use of a card by a 10 year old.
This is really an extension of that. The phone owner did not give his kid permission to buy something, and thus it was not an authorized use of his account. The fact that the phone can't detect this scenario in no way makes the owner responsible. You can't unconsciously give somebody permission to do something. A computer might misinterpret your actions as authorizing something. A company might write a bunch of contract terms that claim that you can authorize something non-explicitly. However, in the end the only thing that matters is actual intent. If you don't intend to authorize a transaction, then no contract exists, and thus no obligation to pay the bill exists.
And there was monitoring going on in this case? Hardly.
He wasn't standing close enough to the helipad that he would have heard a helicopter in operation? If so, then I'm fine with legal action being taken - that would be reckless
Also, safe monitoring assumes fault-free humans, hardly probable. I'd say we'd be just a little safer if we ban the flying of model aircraft in the area of an airport, or helipad.
We'd be safer still if we banned flying any aircraft in the area of an airport of helipad. They're operated by fault-prone humans as well. In fact, planes crash into each other in the vicinity of airports from time to time, even in controlled airspace (and most helipads aren't controlled). At most airports the only way to guarantee not hitting another plane is spotting it in the air. They're not required to announce their position on radio or be equipped with gear that broadcasts their location.
I think what makes more sense is coming up with reasonable procedures to make aircraft and drones safer, not outright bans.
Plus $120 per TByte if you want to actually restore the data.
The cost to restore data from Glacier is actually fairly complex to calculate. It is about $105/TB for data transfer which you can't avoid at all and that is constant regardless of how fast you download it (it would be cheaper to have them mail you hard drives - $80 each plus a bit more for hourly loading fees). Then there is the retrieval cost, which varies SIGNIFICANTLY based on the speed of retrieval. If you restored that 20TB evenly over the span of 4 months it would cost you about $50 in retrieval costs. If you restored it over the span of 2 days it would cost you $3000 in retrieval costs (on top of the $2k for transfer).
I use Glacier for backups, but only in addition to local backups. My Glacier use case is that the house has burned down, and having to pay an extra $100 to restore my backup really isn't a big deal in that case. Chances are it would take days to have a new PC up and running so I could probably cut down the costs considerably by spreading out my restore requests.
This is the approach I use, actually, with some variation.
Group 1 is critical data (documents, etc). It is only a few GB, and I use duplicity to do daily incrementals to the cloud.
Group 2 is everything (including group 1). It is about 2TB, and I do daily rsnapshots with a few days retained to a local hard drive.
Regarding multimedia like photos, etc. I put that in group 1 to start. However, once I accumulate a few GB of it I do a one-time backup of it and then move those files to group 2. That keeps my critical files collection manageable so that my full backups of that set don't keep growing over time. If I take a picture it doesn't keep changing over time, so a one-time strategy makes more sense, and there are many ways to do that (burn to DVD, offsite hard drive, cheap cloud service, etc).
The main benefits of the cloud-based solution to me are that it is offsite, and it doesn't require any media manipulation so I can stick it in my crontab and just occassionally test that it is still working. I don't want to rely on a backup solution that I can potentially forget to run.