I even turn my Garmin on every single day when I drive to work. I known damn well where I am, and I know 10 alternative routes. But I can't look over hills and around corners to see if there's a traffic jam. That's why the traffic information supplied by my GPS is more than welcome.
Got one that doesn't call home, btw.
Ok, silly question: How does it get the traffic updates? If I'm not mistaken, local traffic conditions aren't included in GPS datasets, are they?
Personally, I view this development as a positive for safety on the roads - roads where 10s of thousands die each year where both speed and DUI are major contributors.
Sure, DUIs are unsafe, but speed by itself isn't a killer... {Yes, you said "contributed", I know...}
Speeding inappropriately is what kills people. The Autobahn {and German driving in general} is an example of what we should have here.
Congratulations. You just proved the point you were arguing against.
If the police arrive with the mindset that there is going to be a shoot-out that they cannot afford to lose, the criminal develops a mindset that the police are there to kill them. If the criminal has the mindset that the police are there to kill them, they are going to fight back with everything they have. If the criminal fights back with everything he has, the police end up in a shoot-out that they can't afford to lose. Do you see the problem here? In short, everyone involved is acting out of fear rather than reason. That's a problem. The solution is for the police to respond with appropriate force rather than bringing the kitchen sink. In this case, unless there was information to indicate that the suspect was also heavily armed and ready to fight to the death, a SWAT raid was clearly over the top.
Agreed wholeheartedly. It'd not be nearly as damning if it weren't for the local sheriff in Waco. Y'see, he'd already served quite a number of warrants on Koresh and found that when approached with respect, he was quite pliable and went peacefully. From what I remember, he'd even asked to be the one to serve the newest batch of warrants, but the Feds overruled, saying that they could do it better.
In my completely subjective opinion, it's an aversion to marketing. A lot of the population see the world of technology as filled with magic black boxes. Techies see objects with an innate desire to understand at least the basics of how they work. When their understanding of how things work, and consequently the implications of that functionality existing in the real world, doesn't match with the marketing it is perceived as bullshit. A negative opinion is formed. The stronger the marketing effort and the more that marketing deviates from perceived reality, the more strongly the resistance and desire to communicate that negative opinion.
Speaking solely for myself, you nailed it here.
I don't care who it is; I'd resent anyone trying to feed me a poop sandwich by calling it filet mignon.
The banks aren't where people get screwed on PCI compliance, it's the credit card companies. As part of your merchant agreement with them you agree to secure your network to PCI standards AND agree to potential audits by them. You're also supposed to get a quarterly PCI-compliance audit if you have an externally-facing IP address open.
Securing wireless connections is PART of compliance. Check out more detail here:
For the same reasons you cannot knowingly allow an unmitigated security risk, you also cannot "cut them out of any form of network access" because doing so might negatively impact provision of medical care to a patient.
Horse-hockey. They can have another staff member retrieve the info for them.
If the hosting device is only supposed to be for staff calendaring (who's on duty when) and contains no patient data then HIPAA would not apply.
The question isn't whether it's designed to handle EPHI data, but whether it could be compromised to do so.... a question that IT can't answer unless they have control.
I'd not put it past the music/movie industry, or the government censors they support, to try to make it a felony to "broadcast" to music you haven't paid for.
Don't sell them short. They're working on it as we speak:
People always claim they'll stop pirating music when there's a cheap and convenient way of legally buying the music. So far there really haven't been such ways.
I'm pretty sure that Radiohead put this baby to bed. Hell, even Duran Duran released their new album on iTunes in December before releasing the CD in March. The artists are more than willing to support anything that gets their music out there. Their record companies, not so much. Check the sales figures on those two examples above and tell me that people don't want to support the artists they like.
Besides, everyone knows the bands make their money off their concert merchandise...
In addition, guess what all my legally bought DVDs have? A warning that if I pirate, the goon squad will be sent. That's right, every single copy of my legally bought movies is lecturing me about something I'm not doing.... So f*ck 'em, I download a copy without the warning and watch THAT.
YOU may be comfortable with people calling you a thief out of turn, but *I* resent the implication.
Then that's not "taking unemployment", that's "taking payments from a court victory/legal settlement", and thus loses its objectionability.
You really have NO idea how unemployment claims work, do you?
They canned her, saying money was missing, even though the manager that was in charge of the cash at that time was later let go due to embezzlement. They had no proof, no documentation, etc., and I can guarantee you that she'd not taken a dime. Y'know, that whole "moral structure" riff. She decided to get unemployment and started looking for a job. She found one in short order and IMMEDIATELY dropped the UI.
About a week later, we get a letter that stated that her former client didn't like her getting UI, so they appealed. Denied. They appealed AGAIN, and showed up armed with only a bunch of accusations, telling the mediator that it was "good enough".
The state disagreed, allowed one last appeal that they didn't even respond to on time, and closed the case.
BTW, what twisted chain of logic leads you to believe that going on UI temporarily is sign of moral turpitude?!?
Then I saw who was affected and said "Phew! This is only the unproductive people!"
I love it when jackasses speak from their rear.
You oughta meet my wife. She took unemployment for two months while she was looking for a job. Other than that, she's had a steady job since before I knew her, 7 years ago... and outperforms kids half her age.
As I was thinking about black holes the other day, a few questions came to mind. I'm no astrophysicist, so pardon if they're silly.
The setup: If you pass the event horizon, you're going in, obviously. While you won't take forever to hit the singularity once you're past the event horizon, it APPEARS as such.
1. If I took a cube 100 meters on a side, carved information on it that could be read from a distance, and slung it past the EH, how long would it remain visible? Forever? For the life of the singularity?
2. If for a long period of time, could this be used as a method of "permanent" information storage? I've read too much sci-fi, as I keep picturing an intergalactic bulletin board... just waiting to be read...
4. If the block DOES remain visible, and the singularity eventually has enough dropped blocks into it, would it render the black hole "visible"?
Hooray for you! Too bad it doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
congratulations, you're the first person whose article of faith i've challenged is that whale song is as complex as human speech.
How DARE I quote an expert in the field! Why, a marine biologist knows NOTHING about this, do they? *snicker*
watched a little too much star trek iv have you?
You've GOT to be trolling. There is no such thing as "too much Star Trek IV". Still irrelevant.
it's really silly to ask someone to cite what should be as plain as day obvious to anyone with functional senses.
Schrodinger's cat would like a word with you. "Common sense" would dictate that it's alive or dead, but not both.
i am offering you no citations because it's silly and laughable for you to expect them. i probably could easily find some if i tried. but i'm not trying, because the argument is not worth having, because i'm not in the habit of arguing in defense of obvious reality. if someone is delusional and cannot see the obvious for themselves, they are not worth the time to communicate with.
Well, I'm trying to use small words, but you don't seem to be getting it.......so I'll just provide yet another link that underscores my point.... y'know, the sciency-kind that you seem to be ignoring so far...
http://www.physorg.com/news11980.html
So what you're saying is that you have no actual information to counter the example above {in my case, a marine biologist}, and instead insist that "everyone knows this."
Fine... if it's such common knowledge, then you should have no trouble in finding a counter-citation. We're waiting.
Slashdot Mirror
I even turn my Garmin on every single day when I drive to work. I known damn well where I am, and I know 10 alternative routes. But I can't look over hills and around corners to see if there's a traffic jam. That's why the traffic information supplied by my GPS is more than welcome. Got one that doesn't call home, btw.
Ok, silly question: How does it get the traffic updates? If I'm not mistaken, local traffic conditions aren't included in GPS datasets, are they?
Personally, I view this development as a positive for safety on the roads - roads where 10s of thousands die each year where both speed and DUI are major contributors.
Sure, DUIs are unsafe, but speed by itself isn't a killer... {Yes, you said "contributed", I know...}
Speeding inappropriately is what kills people. The Autobahn {and German driving in general} is an example of what we should have here.
No, I'm a British Royalist out to reconquer everything in the name of Charles vi Brittania!
He really has a good platform.
You oughta meet Lord British. He's good on a number of platforms.
Congratulations. You just proved the point you were arguing against. If the police arrive with the mindset that there is going to be a shoot-out that they cannot afford to lose, the criminal develops a mindset that the police are there to kill them. If the criminal has the mindset that the police are there to kill them, they are going to fight back with everything they have. If the criminal fights back with everything he has, the police end up in a shoot-out that they can't afford to lose. Do you see the problem here? In short, everyone involved is acting out of fear rather than reason. That's a problem. The solution is for the police to respond with appropriate force rather than bringing the kitchen sink. In this case, unless there was information to indicate that the suspect was also heavily armed and ready to fight to the death, a SWAT raid was clearly over the top.
Agreed wholeheartedly. It'd not be nearly as damning if it weren't for the local sheriff in Waco. Y'see, he'd already served quite a number of warrants on Koresh and found that when approached with respect, he was quite pliable and went peacefully. From what I remember, he'd even asked to be the one to serve the newest batch of warrants, but the Feds overruled, saying that they could do it better.
Cue the clusterf*ck from there.
In my completely subjective opinion, it's an aversion to marketing. A lot of the population see the world of technology as filled with magic black boxes. Techies see objects with an innate desire to understand at least the basics of how they work. When their understanding of how things work, and consequently the implications of that functionality existing in the real world, doesn't match with the marketing it is perceived as bullshit. A negative opinion is formed. The stronger the marketing effort and the more that marketing deviates from perceived reality, the more strongly the resistance and desire to communicate that negative opinion.
Speaking solely for myself, you nailed it here.
I don't care who it is; I'd resent anyone trying to feed me a poop sandwich by calling it filet mignon.
Stating facts in a humorous manner != "attacking people left, right, and center".
...and when it starts actually being funny, we'll let you know....
....but until then, it's jus' making you look like a douchebag.
What, you think you're the first person to laugh at fanboys here? Sheesh...
The banks aren't where people get screwed on PCI compliance, it's the credit card companies. As part of your merchant agreement with them you agree to secure your network to PCI standards AND agree to potential audits by them. You're also supposed to get a quarterly PCI-compliance audit if you have an externally-facing IP address open.
Securing wireless connections is PART of compliance. Check out more detail here:
http://www.pcicomplianceguide.org/pcifaqs.php
"Freebird!"
Hey, I used to be homeless, too, and play some mean air drums. Wanna get an air band together? If we got booked, would it be a bum gig?
I'm more annoyed by the BS line on page 5 that reads:
"To provide the high quality products and services that its customers demand, Apple must have access to location-based information." {emphasis mine}
Bulls**t. There's no "must" about it, and is pretty damn dishonest in itself.
Nah, the Reps are too busy trying to bury their Trump card.
...probably 'cause their king's a joker who'd jack those queens right in their ace-hole..
For the same reasons you cannot knowingly allow an unmitigated security risk, you also cannot "cut them out of any form of network access" because doing so might negatively impact provision of medical care to a patient.
Horse-hockey. They can have another staff member retrieve the info for them.
If the hosting device is only supposed to be for staff calendaring (who's on duty when) and contains no patient data then HIPAA would not apply.
The question isn't whether it's designed to handle EPHI data, but whether it could be compromised to do so.... a question that IT can't answer unless they have control.
I'd not put it past the music/movie industry, or the government censors they support, to try to make it a felony to "broadcast" to music you haven't paid for.
Don't sell them short. They're working on it as we speak:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2382048,00.asp
People always claim they'll stop pirating music when there's a cheap and convenient way of legally buying the music. So far there really haven't been such ways.
I'm pretty sure that Radiohead put this baby to bed. Hell, even Duran Duran released their new album on iTunes in December before releasing the CD in March. The artists are more than willing to support anything that gets their music out there. Their record companies, not so much. Check the sales figures on those two examples above and tell me that people don't want to support the artists they like.
Besides, everyone knows the bands make their money off their concert merchandise...
In addition, guess what all my legally bought DVDs have? A warning that if I pirate, the goon squad will be sent. That's right, every single copy of my legally bought movies is lecturing me about something I'm not doing.... So f*ck 'em, I download a copy without the warning and watch THAT.
YOU may be comfortable with people calling you a thief out of turn, but *I* resent the implication.
Good for the China! Fictional plots involving time travel are nothing more than mental masturbation.
I'll bet that you don't watch a lot of American TV. I'll take bad time-travel stories over 'roided-up guidos any day.
The Marx capacitor
I tried using that one as a replacement, but it kept plunking me down outside movie theaters showing Duck Soup...
...which I watched 167 times, and it kept getting funnier every time I saw it.
Then that's not "taking unemployment", that's "taking payments from a court victory/legal settlement", and thus loses its objectionability.
You really have NO idea how unemployment claims work, do you?
They canned her, saying money was missing, even though the manager that was in charge of the cash at that time was later let go due to embezzlement. They had no proof, no documentation, etc., and I can guarantee you that she'd not taken a dime. Y'know, that whole "moral structure" riff. She decided to get unemployment and started looking for a job. She found one in short order and IMMEDIATELY dropped the UI.
About a week later, we get a letter that stated that her former client didn't like her getting UI, so they appealed. Denied. They appealed AGAIN, and showed up armed with only a bunch of accusations, telling the mediator that it was "good enough".
The state disagreed, allowed one last appeal that they didn't even respond to on time, and closed the case.
BTW, what twisted chain of logic leads you to believe that going on UI temporarily is sign of moral turpitude?!?
Actually, it only skews conservative outside the urban areas and the valley....
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/texas.html
Wow, and she didn't find it shameful at all to go on unemployment just for a two month gap?
Actually, she was fired for something she didn't do, and the state of Texas backed her on it when her former employer decided to appeal.
Anything else you'd like to be wrong about?
Then I saw who was affected and said "Phew! This is only the unproductive people!"
I love it when jackasses speak from their rear.
You oughta meet my wife. She took unemployment for two months while she was looking for a job. Other than that, she's had a steady job since before I knew her, 7 years ago... and outperforms kids half her age.
Unproductive, my foot.
Let me guess: you're a conservative.
3. Why do you hate the #3? ...because "eleventy-two" is a LOT more fun to say.
As I was thinking about black holes the other day, a few questions came to mind. I'm no astrophysicist, so pardon if they're silly.
The setup: If you pass the event horizon, you're going in, obviously. While you won't take forever to hit the singularity once you're past the event horizon, it APPEARS as such.
1. If I took a cube 100 meters on a side, carved information on it that could be read from a distance, and slung it past the EH, how long would it remain visible? Forever? For the life of the singularity?
2. If for a long period of time, could this be used as a method of "permanent" information storage? I've read too much sci-fi, as I keep picturing an intergalactic bulletin board... just waiting to be read...
4. If the block DOES remain visible, and the singularity eventually has enough dropped blocks into it, would it render the black hole "visible"?
Google didn't licence anything, have never claimed compatibility and don't even use Sun / Oracle code.
Hey, while we're on that topic, does anyone know how this case worked out in court?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/01/oracle_hits_google_with_code_copying_claims/
i've argued with creationists, ufo believers, ayn rand free market fundamentalists..
Hooray for you! Too bad it doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.
congratulations, you're the first person whose article of faith i've challenged is that whale song is as complex as human speech.
How DARE I quote an expert in the field! Why, a marine biologist knows NOTHING about this, do they? *snicker*
watched a little too much star trek iv have you?
You've GOT to be trolling. There is no such thing as "too much Star Trek IV". Still irrelevant.
it's really silly to ask someone to cite what should be as plain as day obvious to anyone with functional senses.
Schrodinger's cat would like a word with you. "Common sense" would dictate that it's alive or dead, but not both.
i am offering you no citations because it's silly and laughable for you to expect them. i probably could easily find some if i tried. but i'm not trying, because the argument is not worth having, because i'm not in the habit of arguing in defense of obvious reality. if someone is delusional and cannot see the obvious for themselves, they are not worth the time to communicate with.
Well, I'm trying to use small words, but you don't seem to be getting it.... ...so I'll just provide yet another link that underscores my point.... y'know, the sciency-kind that you seem to be ignoring so far...
http://www.physorg.com/news11980.html
So what you're saying is that you have no actual information to counter the example above {in my case, a marine biologist}, and instead insist that "everyone knows this."
Fine... if it's such common knowledge, then you should have no trouble in finding a counter-citation. We're waiting.