As someone who is smart enough to avoid wasting money on this, I'll assume that your legal honest ethical fantasy sports betting -- I mean non-betting -- sites prohibit in some way picking a fantasy team composed of members of the same real-life team. Somehow I doubt that is true. Given that team rosters can change during a season, do any of them keep an eye out for fantasy teams that are "everyone except Joe Smith is from the Atlanta Goobers" and then Joe Smith is traded to the Atlanta Goobers?
They'd be amazingly stupid to have spent all that money on lobbying to get an exemption in the law and then not add a trivial check (are all the players in this team from the same real team if so it is invalid) to the team validation step.
Doubting they do is like doubting that that an internet stock broker checks if a customer is meeting the criteria for a "pattern day trader" and just figures FINRA rules were met last week so who cares about this week. It could be the case, but it's extremely unlikely given the ease of checking and the severe consequences for not doing so.
Because the fantasy sports industry spent enough money on lobbyists to get an an exemption written into the law. Logic and reason don't matter when the law explicitly states that fantasy sports aren't betting or wagering for the purposes of the law (just like it states that an insurance contract isn't and commodities trading isn't).
The point seems obvious enough. The credit card industry has extremely poor security, because as you said their customers are too lazy to actually want the inconvenience that comes with good security.
Which is fine, it's a choice. It does mean that having " the best fraud prevention known" is almost as bad as having "the worst fraud prevention known" since both are terrible. Sure pathetic is better than non-existent, but it's something to brag about.
You gave the reason for having terrible fraud prevention as the general public being too lazy.
I agree, 99% of your customers will go elsewhere if you use a more secure system that is also more work for them.
I conclude that you don't do that because you don't want to lose the business of 99% of your customers.
And hence you have terrible fraud prevention because you don't want to lose the business of those lazy people.
If that's not the case then what is the point of mentioning that most people are too lazy for that process?
So you claim to have great fraud prevention, but actually have terrible fraud prevention because you don't want to lose the business of lazy people.
Nothing wrong with that, but why claim otherwise?
Other than your apparent lack of understanding of scale, was there a point?
A majority of Americans were affected. At the very least their television programming was interrupted for minutely updates. The 2% of Americans that lived in NYC had their normal daily routines interrupted. Flights were grounded for a few days, affecting yet more Americans.
Politicians don't care about a few people dying in random accidents.
They care about lots of voters being grumpy because they were told to leave and were inconvenienced by it and then it turned out there was no actual need to leave since the Hurricane wasn't as bad as predicted for their location. And that it makes them look silly to some voters.
I know a person whose husband died in the due to the building he was in being hit by a plane and then falling down. They were certainly affected, as was the husband himself (though for a shorter time I guess).
So that's two people, there were 285 million Americans at the time, so that's 70x the number of people you claim were affected. And I'm pretty sure that one man wasn't the only person to have died in those events.
Do you really have such a terrible understanding of simple multiplication and numbers, not to mention scale.
It's the exact opposite of what the source article title says to. Just standard click bait garbage.
A number of acts all of which are not considered "workplace bullying" individually can when considered as a whole constitute "workplace bullying" is apparently the actual ruling. Which should be obvious since repetition is part of the usual bullying definition.
In which case it's a misuse of scarce economic resources to start with, and society will be better off with a more efficient allocation.
"Destroying" the company doesn't magically make all the assets disappear. Someone else buys all those factories. People are still going to be buying the same number of cars with or without that company existing and thus those cars will still be built. Those factories and workers will be needed by whomever takes up the slack.
The first thing you would want to do is convince everyone else that you failed.
Because no one has fallen down stairs, or been gored by a bison, or gored during the running of the balls without a camera? What evidence do you have that people think things are less dangerous with a camera?
I would expect there to be a group of people who think doing those things is worth the risk just in and of itself. Then there'd be a group of people who think the risk is worth it for some incentive (from they get a cool picture to put on facebook, being paid a million dollars, walking on a ledge to reach their stuck child, etc). There's no change in their perception of risk though, just the usual as the incentive is increased more and more people think the increasing benefit outweighs the constant risk.
Yes it does. The money springs into being from nowhere. The cost of doing that is inflation.
However, given how much money is created from nowhere in the current scheme of things it might actually not make a noticeable difference.
Understanding is always the understanding of a smaller problem in relation to a bigger problem. -- P.D. Ouspensky