On the other hand but you could approach the argument the other way. Does he actually have to utter the name in order to communicate something. i.e. if I said something like, I have a strong distaste for recent versions of Windows, especially Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and *censored* then it would be pretty clear what the item was that I was referring to.
I'm not saying that I agree with this sort of law, but I think the headline is rather sensationalist. From what I gather, from the perspective of the prosecution, it should be more like 'Thailand Jails Dissident for what the dissident communicated (non-verbally)'.
So then... what... if I don't like your business I can hold a 30 day protect and DDoS your site? The thing with regular protests is that there is a point in which people lose interest and go home (generally). It takes a lot longer to get tired of a little bit of computer power being used to hit a site.
The thing that differentiates real world protests is that you have to care about an issue. You have to be willing to take time out of your day, or take time off of work or whatever in order to exercise your right to protest. Make DDoS a legal form of protest means that there is almost zero barrier to entry and people could potentially protest over things they don't really care about that much.
I get your point about the possible need for a way to protest organizations that don't have a physically accessible spot, but I don't think that this is the answer.
Yes, for math/science especially, you need something that the professor can walk up to in front of the class and point to things. i.e. point out what part of an equations he/she is talking about or use gestures to illustrate a relationship between two parts of something.
Well, if you're going to be particular, you are searching through Google's index of the Internet. It isn't like every search you make results in a bunch of requests to all the websites to see if it matches your query.
One might suppose that the car would include infrared/thermal imaging and would be able to use that to identify animals vs plants. The signatures between the two would probably be different. Also, as outlined in http://iris.usc.edu/outlines/papers/2007/zhang-nev-wu-otcbvs07.pdf an autonomous car would also have the advantage of more information that a normal person would have. You could have a variety of imaging methods that could be juxtaposed to present a picture of the situation that would be unavailable to the human eye. It would be easier to detect the pedestrian walking down the side of the road in dark clothes at night because you would have a thermal signature. You can also track more objects at once if you do the software once. So you don't forget to look at the kid ahead on the right because a cyclist passed by on the left.
I get your point - humans have more sympathy for humans than for machines, and I honestly don't know what the answer is to that. On the other hand, if the overall number of traffic fatalities, injuries and collisions is reduced by a significant enough margin (and I suspect, based on that I've heard of the results of Google's tests, that they would) then I think society as a whole would recognize that although there are exceptions we are still far better off than before. Fortunately, we have the stats to be able to measure this.
I could see phasing the responsible human requirement out as time progresses. Maybe as we begin to implement such a system we require a human to be engaged and ready to take over at all times. As time progresses we can examine the collected data such as fatalities, injuries, collisions, amount of human intervention required and examine the causes of accidents and perhaps relax the rules if the technology really proves itself.
You could argue that they were pledging for a device that would charge both Android phones and Apple phones. Apple went and changed the connector for the new iPhone so the device would then by obsolete by the time it was released.
No, Microsoft is negotiating. I would imagine that if an app developer brought something to the table that Microsoft thought would be of significant benefit to the success of their platform, that they would be open to negotiation.
That is certainly a possibility, but not a guarantee. Android is making up ground in the tablet/mobile space. It is entirely possible that it would be a killer for MS Office to not be on iOS. It is also entirely possibly that it would be a killer for iOS to not have office. The question really is the risk assessment. Is Microsoft willing to cede the 30% because they believe the risk to them is too great? Or can they convince Apple that the risk of not having Office is too great and that it would pay off to give up some of that 30% cut.
Sure... unless they can negotiate a better deal on the basis that they can convince Apple that they need Office enough that they are willing to cut the rates for it.
Fallen? I'm not sure about that. MS Office is still the platform of choice. I doubt that Microsoft is really considering 'fair' on this. Not that they are trying to be unfair. They are likely simply trying to negotiate a better deal on the basis that they believe having MS Office on iOS is important for Apple.
The question to ask is who stands to lose more of MS doesn't release Office for iOS? Short term is definitely MS, but as Android's share continues to increase this will become more and more of a deciding factor if the implementation is good.
If you're spending $1,499 on a laptop, another $50 isn't going to be a make it or break it thing. There could be many reasons for extra price. The cost per unit to get everything polished for Ubuntu is probably what increases the price.
If Dell can sell a polished Ultrabook experience that runs Ubuntu and they can market and demonstrate value over using Windows then this will sell. You can't sell an operating system using cost as a criteria on a $1500 laptop. The people buying it just don't care about the $50. Nor would they be swayed if the Linux version was $50 less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Addiction_and_tolerance "With repetitive use, physical dependence or addiction are likely to occur. Also, the stimulatory effects of caffeine are substantially reduced over time, a phenomenon known as a tolerance."
Also: http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.html "Tolerance refers to a decrease in responsiveness to a drug after repeated drug exposure. High doses of caffeine (750 to 1200 mg/day spread throughout the day) administered daily, have been shown to produce "complete" tolerance (i.e., caffeine effects are no longer different from baseline or placebo) to some, but not all of the effects of caffeine. However, lower or typical dietary doses of caffeine produce incomplete tolerance. For example, sleep may continue to be disrupted in regular caffeine users."
I think you totally missed what he was trying to say. He wasn't implying that all a software engineer does is write tests. Rather a software engineer is somebody who not only writes some code and hopes it works but also writes tests to demonstrate that it does work.
Actually according to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/law/transmission.htm the riskiest activity is receptive anal sex which has a risk of 50 in 10,000. If you're not catching the risks are significantly lower.
Loosing a suit is a very kind thing to do because it makes it easier for the wearer to breathe and is often much more comfortable. That is, unless you make the suit too loose and it becomes a pain to hold the pants up.
There are options if you want unlimited Internet in Canada. Fewer or greater depending on where you live. They do tend not to be the mainstream carriers though. Fortunately, I happen to live in a small area serviced by a cable provider that offers unlimited.
THIS, this right here, is why I can't understand why MSFT is blowing billions jumping into the shark tank that is ARM powered mobile devices. Frankly Apple is the ONLY one making reliable money, the rest are caught in a race to the bottom, HTC has had some bad quarters, so has Samsung, the rest are looking ready to lose their shirts. the chips are changing too fast, they have too much stock, and frankly nobody looks at anything but the price...except for Apple.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, even in a downturn Apple will make out like bandits because they are NOT a tech company that makes fashionable devices, they are a fashion company that happens to work in tech. This is actually a GOOD thing for Apple fans, just look at lines around the block and people paying crazy markup for Air Jordans. Fashion seems immune when it comes to downturns for the most part, and even when article after article bitches about their memory prices...they keep right on buying.
So any company trying to jump into that blood soaked shark tank is frankly more than a little insane, and anybody that thinks they'll make iMoney with Android or WinRT are frankly delusional. Mark my words you'll see dual core 7 inch tablets for $50, the prices will drop so low it'll practically be throwaway devices. The only one that will be making consistent profits will be Apple, and this is coming from someone who doesn't even own an iPod.
It isn't necessarily about making money, IMO. It is about creating an ecosystem that allows their existing product to continue to thrive. As more and more people embrace mobile, and as the tablet and the laptop continue to converge, it seems apparent that Microsoft can't just keep on delivering new releases of Windows and Office. Eventually, as Google Apps continue to improve and make headway, as Google releases the Chromebook and such alternatives take root, there is going to be fewer and fewer things that are keeping people in the Microsoft world.
Even if Microsoft's mobile venture doesn't win them huge sums of money, inroads in market share means that the Windows experience is out there as a viable alternative moving forward. Delivering an ecosystem where Windows applications can run on both the desktop and the mobile device means that development for the Windows platform can continue. If enterprises are forced to support Android and/or iOS anyway then there is no reason to build anything that takes advantage of Microsoft unique features. If Microsoft can put forth a unified ecosystem where enterprises can be convinced to target the Windows platform, that is a huge win for the long term viability of Microsoft.
I'm presuming this has been fixed since I just visited the page and the notice appears pretty much in the middle of the page, slightly above centre. Screen resolution is 1600x900 (which I don't think is extraordinarily high). I can even make the window much shorter and there are still no issues seeing the notice.
Indeed, one is a unit of distance and one is a unit of speed. To convert, you take the 220 km travel distance, and you divide it by the 1 hour that the poster claimed it took him to make this trip. 220 km / 1 hour = 220 kph.
That being said, I don't see how your comment relates to the post you replied to.
Oh I certainly refused to provide them with information. I would not consider providing that information to somebody who had called me on the phone.
My bigger concern is that companies legitimately doing this teaches people that it is okay to provide such information over the phone because it is possible that it actually is a legitimate business.
To get back on topic - I very much agree with my original parent. The caller ID system needs to be revamped to allow for authenticated call origination information. This will not only help deal with spam, but it will also help deal with identity theft.
Also, we need more consumer telephone sets that allow you to do whitelist, greylist and blacklist of phone numbers based on caller ID. This won't solve the authentication issue but it will help consumers deal with telemarketers.
Our phone carrier (Bell Canada) sometimes calls from a number where the number is listed but the organization name is not listed. I assumed it was a telemarketer or something because it was an 800 number. When I finally picked up after numerous calls from the same number it was them (or at least somebody claiming to be them). Seems I forgot to pay the bill. *Then* they asked for my credit card details to collect payment.
I asked to speak to a manager and ask about how that correlates to the fact that their website says that their Website says "Do not give out your personal information. Legitimate companies will never call or e-mail their customers requesting information such as passwords, bank account information or a credit card number, unless they are responding directly to an inquiry you know you have made (See Bell’s Privacy article.)".
Nobody seemed to have anything to say about it other than that it was standard practice for them to make such calls. I had no way of knowing with certainty that it actually was Bell Canada and not some other organization performing a phishing attack.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, now imagine if they were things like coffee makers, toasters, and other small appliances, Java enabled, left open on the Internet.
Have a grudge against somebody? Make their toast extra dark and their coffee extra weak.
Whoooosh
On the other hand but you could approach the argument the other way. Does he actually have to utter the name in order to communicate something. i.e. if I said something like, I have a strong distaste for recent versions of Windows, especially Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7 and *censored* then it would be pretty clear what the item was that I was referring to.
I'm not saying that I agree with this sort of law, but I think the headline is rather sensationalist. From what I gather, from the perspective of the prosecution, it should be more like 'Thailand Jails Dissident for what the dissident communicated (non-verbally)'.
So then... what... if I don't like your business I can hold a 30 day protect and DDoS your site? The thing with regular protests is that there is a point in which people lose interest and go home (generally). It takes a lot longer to get tired of a little bit of computer power being used to hit a site.
The thing that differentiates real world protests is that you have to care about an issue. You have to be willing to take time out of your day, or take time off of work or whatever in order to exercise your right to protest. Make DDoS a legal form of protest means that there is almost zero barrier to entry and people could potentially protest over things they don't really care about that much.
I get your point about the possible need for a way to protest organizations that don't have a physically accessible spot, but I don't think that this is the answer.
Yes, for math/science especially, you need something that the professor can walk up to in front of the class and point to things. i.e. point out what part of an equations he/she is talking about or use gestures to illustrate a relationship between two parts of something.
Obviously. Nothing to see, because it is voice, and nothing to hear, because it is silence.
Well, if you're going to be particular, you are searching through Google's index of the Internet. It isn't like every search you make results in a bunch of requests to all the websites to see if it matches your query.
One might suppose that the car would include infrared/thermal imaging and would be able to use that to identify animals vs plants. The signatures between the two would probably be different. Also, as outlined in http://iris.usc.edu/outlines/papers/2007/zhang-nev-wu-otcbvs07.pdf an autonomous car would also have the advantage of more information that a normal person would have. You could have a variety of imaging methods that could be juxtaposed to present a picture of the situation that would be unavailable to the human eye. It would be easier to detect the pedestrian walking down the side of the road in dark clothes at night because you would have a thermal signature. You can also track more objects at once if you do the software once. So you don't forget to look at the kid ahead on the right because a cyclist passed by on the left.
I get your point - humans have more sympathy for humans than for machines, and I honestly don't know what the answer is to that. On the other hand, if the overall number of traffic fatalities, injuries and collisions is reduced by a significant enough margin (and I suspect, based on that I've heard of the results of Google's tests, that they would) then I think society as a whole would recognize that although there are exceptions we are still far better off than before. Fortunately, we have the stats to be able to measure this.
I could see phasing the responsible human requirement out as time progresses. Maybe as we begin to implement such a system we require a human to be engaged and ready to take over at all times. As time progresses we can examine the collected data such as fatalities, injuries, collisions, amount of human intervention required and examine the causes of accidents and perhaps relax the rules if the technology really proves itself.
You could argue that they were pledging for a device that would charge both Android phones and Apple phones. Apple went and changed the connector for the new iPhone so the device would then by obsolete by the time it was released.
In what way is he being an idiot? He is saying basically the same thing you are.
No, Microsoft is negotiating. I would imagine that if an app developer brought something to the table that Microsoft thought would be of significant benefit to the success of their platform, that they would be open to negotiation.
That is certainly a possibility, but not a guarantee. Android is making up ground in the tablet/mobile space. It is entirely possible that it would be a killer for MS Office to not be on iOS. It is also entirely possibly that it would be a killer for iOS to not have office. The question really is the risk assessment. Is Microsoft willing to cede the 30% because they believe the risk to them is too great? Or can they convince Apple that the risk of not having Office is too great and that it would pay off to give up some of that 30% cut.
Sure... unless they can negotiate a better deal on the basis that they can convince Apple that they need Office enough that they are willing to cut the rates for it.
Fallen? I'm not sure about that. MS Office is still the platform of choice. I doubt that Microsoft is really considering 'fair' on this. Not that they are trying to be unfair. They are likely simply trying to negotiate a better deal on the basis that they believe having MS Office on iOS is important for Apple.
The question to ask is who stands to lose more of MS doesn't release Office for iOS? Short term is definitely MS, but as Android's share continues to increase this will become more and more of a deciding factor if the implementation is good.
If you're spending $1,499 on a laptop, another $50 isn't going to be a make it or break it thing. There could be many reasons for extra price. The cost per unit to get everything polished for Ubuntu is probably what increases the price.
If Dell can sell a polished Ultrabook experience that runs Ubuntu and they can market and demonstrate value over using Windows then this will sell. You can't sell an operating system using cost as a criteria on a $1500 laptop. The people buying it just don't care about the $50. Nor would they be swayed if the Linux version was $50 less.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Addiction_and_tolerance
"With repetitive use, physical dependence or addiction are likely to occur. Also, the stimulatory effects of caffeine are substantially reduced over time, a phenomenon known as a tolerance."
Also: http://www.caffeinedependence.org/caffeine_dependence.html
"Tolerance refers to a decrease in responsiveness to a drug after repeated drug exposure. High doses of caffeine (750 to 1200 mg/day spread throughout the day) administered daily, have been shown to produce "complete" tolerance (i.e., caffeine effects are no longer different from baseline or placebo) to some, but not all of the effects of caffeine. However, lower or typical dietary doses of caffeine produce incomplete tolerance. For example, sleep may continue to be disrupted in regular caffeine users."
I think you totally missed what he was trying to say. He wasn't implying that all a software engineer does is write tests. Rather a software engineer is somebody who not only writes some code and hopes it works but also writes tests to demonstrate that it does work.
Actually according to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/law/transmission.htm the riskiest activity is receptive anal sex which has a risk of 50 in 10,000. If you're not catching the risks are significantly lower.
Loosing a suit is a very kind thing to do because it makes it easier for the wearer to breathe and is often much more comfortable. That is, unless you make the suit too loose and it becomes a pain to hold the pants up.
There are options if you want unlimited Internet in Canada. Fewer or greater depending on where you live. They do tend not to be the mainstream carriers though. Fortunately, I happen to live in a small area serviced by a cable provider that offers unlimited.
THIS, this right here, is why I can't understand why MSFT is blowing billions jumping into the shark tank that is ARM powered mobile devices. Frankly Apple is the ONLY one making reliable money, the rest are caught in a race to the bottom, HTC has had some bad quarters, so has Samsung, the rest are looking ready to lose their shirts. the chips are changing too fast, they have too much stock, and frankly nobody looks at anything but the price...except for Apple.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, even in a downturn Apple will make out like bandits because they are NOT a tech company that makes fashionable devices, they are a fashion company that happens to work in tech. This is actually a GOOD thing for Apple fans, just look at lines around the block and people paying crazy markup for Air Jordans. Fashion seems immune when it comes to downturns for the most part, and even when article after article bitches about their memory prices...they keep right on buying.
So any company trying to jump into that blood soaked shark tank is frankly more than a little insane, and anybody that thinks they'll make iMoney with Android or WinRT are frankly delusional. Mark my words you'll see dual core 7 inch tablets for $50, the prices will drop so low it'll practically be throwaway devices. The only one that will be making consistent profits will be Apple, and this is coming from someone who doesn't even own an iPod.
It isn't necessarily about making money, IMO. It is about creating an ecosystem that allows their existing product to continue to thrive. As more and more people embrace mobile, and as the tablet and the laptop continue to converge, it seems apparent that Microsoft can't just keep on delivering new releases of Windows and Office. Eventually, as Google Apps continue to improve and make headway, as Google releases the Chromebook and such alternatives take root, there is going to be fewer and fewer things that are keeping people in the Microsoft world.
Even if Microsoft's mobile venture doesn't win them huge sums of money, inroads in market share means that the Windows experience is out there as a viable alternative moving forward. Delivering an ecosystem where Windows applications can run on both the desktop and the mobile device means that development for the Windows platform can continue. If enterprises are forced to support Android and/or iOS anyway then there is no reason to build anything that takes advantage of Microsoft unique features. If Microsoft can put forth a unified ecosystem where enterprises can be convinced to target the Windows platform, that is a huge win for the long term viability of Microsoft.
I'm presuming this has been fixed since I just visited the page and the notice appears pretty much in the middle of the page, slightly above centre. Screen resolution is 1600x900 (which I don't think is extraordinarily high). I can even make the window much shorter and there are still no issues seeing the notice.
Indeed, one is a unit of distance and one is a unit of speed. To convert, you take the 220 km travel distance, and you divide it by the 1 hour that the poster claimed it took him to make this trip. 220 km / 1 hour = 220 kph.
That being said, I don't see how your comment relates to the post you replied to.
Oh I certainly refused to provide them with information. I would not consider providing that information to somebody who had called me on the phone.
My bigger concern is that companies legitimately doing this teaches people that it is okay to provide such information over the phone because it is possible that it actually is a legitimate business.
To get back on topic - I very much agree with my original parent. The caller ID system needs to be revamped to allow for authenticated call origination information. This will not only help deal with spam, but it will also help deal with identity theft.
Also, we need more consumer telephone sets that allow you to do whitelist, greylist and blacklist of phone numbers based on caller ID. This won't solve the authentication issue but it will help consumers deal with telemarketers.
Our phone carrier (Bell Canada) sometimes calls from a number where the number is listed but the organization name is not listed. I assumed it was a telemarketer or something because it was an 800 number. When I finally picked up after numerous calls from the same number it was them (or at least somebody claiming to be them). Seems I forgot to pay the bill. *Then* they asked for my credit card details to collect payment.
I asked to speak to a manager and ask about how that correlates to the fact that their website says that their Website says "Do not give out your personal information. Legitimate companies will never call or e-mail their customers requesting information such as passwords, bank account information or a credit card number, unless they are responding directly to an inquiry you know you have made (See Bell’s Privacy article.)".
Nobody seemed to have anything to say about it other than that it was standard practice for them to make such calls. I had no way of knowing with certainty that it actually was Bell Canada and not some other organization performing a phishing attack.