It sounds like it is more about making sure that the buyer is absolutely clear about what she/he is getting. Qualifying buyers means you can at least have a conversation where the purchaser says 'I know there are going to be a *lot* of rough edges and I'm okay with major functionality possibly not working'. Otherwise, you end up with buyers who see the word open and rush to buy it perhaps without realizing what they were getting.
Maybe this fear is founded, maybe it isn't. But I don't see it as being completely unreasonable.
It just seems different to me because of the power issues. It seems helpful to have accountability for police not because they might make a mistake, but because with the power they have it is easy for them to abuse it. It seems to me that a doctor doesn't have that same power. I can't, atm, think of any incentive a doctor would have to give it anything less than his/her best effort. For a police officer, there are so many more factors involved.
Every now and then you hear horror stories about sponges, clamps, and god knows what else being left inside a patient, or a doctor that removes the wrong body part.
You know, a lot of people say this. And while it does accomplish that, the implication is that a regular power connector doesn't come out when you pull on it. My Acer laptop has a power connector that comes out just fine with a little bit of force on the cord.
The MacBook is decent and the magnetic power port is an elegant design. It was a major pain when I somehow ended up with a tiny piece of metal stuck in it though. Had a challenging time trying to get it out. Can't shake it out because the magnet holds it on.
That's not really the point of the research though. The research isn't talking about the benefits of being immersed in a culture and spending time among people speaking that language helping make it easier to learn the language. The research seems to be more around the idea of how our environment and context shapes the way that we think. If you read the summary it talks about how the wrong context can affect your ability to speak a language that you know.
If you're in the learning stages of a language, you have to think carefully about every word. But you eventually get to a point where you think and the words come naturally. What the study suggests is that if your brain picks up signals that suggest the context isn't right for the language you want to speak, then it will have trouble.
I'm sure the analogy doesn't hold, but it is sort of like if you went to play baseball on a soccer field your brain having trouble because it isn't expecting to play baseball - it thinks it should be playing soccer.
And I could only assume that they have the technology to deduct to at least some degree of accuracy the identity of a person based on voice. If not, it will come.
If you use WPA2 Enterprise does the client authenticate base station? i.e. if a device finds a base station with the same SSID will it connect to it? If the fake base station also uses WPA2 Enterprise can it trick the device into sending the credentials?
The article talks about a few different things which are only somewhat related. The wifi vulnerability is the fact that an Apple device will automatically connect to a wifi network that has the same SSID as a network it has previously connected to. I suspect this is the same for Android devices, but I am too lazy to test atm.
The issue that relates to https is related to something called HTTP STS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security). HTTP STS is supposed to be a way by which servers can communicate to browsers that requests to a particular site should always be sent over https. The issue that is being raised is that Chrome supports HTTP STS and hence Android devices do as well, but Safari does not. I guess what this would get you is that if you connect over https to a site over a trusted network, then further requests to that domain are forced to be made over https with a certain validity of certificate.
I would think we are at least a bit more intelligent because, at least in the west, better supply of food and available information about nutrition means that our brains have more of what they need to develop. You are right - we are better informed - and I think one of the results of this is the knowledge of how to foster brain development.
Please enlighten me, how exactly does Microsoft's security support matter? No on even remotely sane uses a version of Internet Explorer that works on XP
Except for big corps that still have large proportions of machines with XP.
That's really beside the point, no? The company isn't complaining at all about being locked in to one OS. This is all in response to somebody wondering if the end of XP will bring about wider adoption of Linux. The answer for this person, was no, it won't, because they have software that only runs on Windows. Sometimes it is hard to find software that does the job, and back in the day when XP was still current, limiting selection to cross platform applications would probably have made it impossible. It is important to remember that the concept of cross platform applications (especially Linux) is only in probably the last five years or so beginning to become a reality.
Well, the study was about browsers and not operating systems. I sort of assumed they tested all browsers on Windows in which case that is a controlled variable.
I'm sure they would sponsor a study looking at power usage of Linux vs. Windows vs. OS X. You probably won't see the results of their work unless it is in their favour, and you probably won't see the results of their work w.r.t. desktop Linux as it doesn't have the mindshare that would make it worthwhile to waste advertising space on (few know what Linux actually is, fewer would consider using it, and fewer still would consider using it, would make a decision based on power usage, and would trust a study funded by Microsoft to base a decision on). I say all this as a Linux/OS X user.
I somehow doubt they really did anything to save power. It seems far more likely that they had a lab setup and did measurements and found that IE used less power than the other browsers that they tested and decided to market it.
The summary does a disservice by comparing the power usage to that required to make a cup of tea. If you read the article, it says "Laptops use about 14.7 Watts when idling. Firing up a browser adds another one or two Watts to this, depending which sites are browsed, and which browser you are using, Fraunhofer found. On desktop PCs, browsers add the same amount to the energy draw – but the baseline is around 37.8W."
So what we're talking about for a laptop is a power savings of about 6-7% when idling.
Power savings in computing for things like web browsers is not about saving the world - it is about allowing you to use your device longer. If you can surf for an extra ten minutes by using IE vs. say Google Chrome then that is actually a somewhat interesting differentiator.
I thought one of the core characteristics of the USA was democracy and the idea that the country is ultimately ruled by the people. As such, there is nothing that excludes somebody from still loving their country but seeing how things are done somewhere else and wondering if it is a good idea.
Of course the USA has different priorities, but aren't those priorities set by the people? If 90% of USAians decide they no longer want to allow people to own guns in their country, does that make it any less USA? (Note, I'm not saying 90% do and I'm not saying guns should be outlawed - just making a point about democracy).
The great thing about democracy is that you have the ability to influence the country in which you live. The great thing about freedom (as you pointed out) is that if you disagree with the rest of your country people you can choose to leave (provided there is somewhere else that will have you).
I believe that as the world changes, so too must people. Representatives are elected to make decisions as to what the priorities should be. The hard part about government is that it seldom happens that people agree on every single issue. It doesn't matter who is elected to govern, both individually and as a collective, they will disagree on *something* with almost everybody in the country.
So to me, to say that there is no room for people to want things to be different is un-'American' - indeed, few politicians get elected on a platform of "I'm going to keep things exactly the same as they are" (as if that is even possible). Rather, most politicians get elected because they have a vision of how their country can be better and a plan for how that might be brought about. If you happen to disagree with choice that your fellow citizens have made, well, you either advocate for your position in hopes that it might be changed, or, as you said, you go somewhere else.
You know, I ended up using a Macbook Pro because that is what the standard config was at work. Fine. I'm learned to adapt, even though Ubuntu is my preference. Overall, I'm pretty happy with it, but it isn't the perfect experience I was lead to believe it would be. I find I have to reboot more often than I did with my Ubuntu laptop. I miss my Home and End keys. Installing applications is confusing sometimes because you download the installer, you click on it, and it takes a few seconds to open. Except in the mean time you aren't sure what is happening so you click on another window and then the installer ends up behind another window and you have no idea where it is. There are other annoying issues. I'm not saying that OS X is awful. I'm only saying that it isn't perfect. Neither is Ubuntu, but I would say that they both have their strong points and their weak points. The biggest issue with Ubuntu, IMO, is the lack of support for it in the enterprise. You can get the VPN software that we use to work on Ubuntu, but don't count on IT to help you with it. Ubuntu is nice because it has a whole library of software that you can install from the repository quickly and easily.
A lot of people grumble about Unity. I'm presuming/hoping these aren't the same people who are OS X fans because Unity, IMO, is basically the OS X dock except moved to the side of the screen (which some people do anyway). OS X tends not to give you a Save As option that you get in most apps on Ubuntu. Also, you don't see to be able to drag files onto applications to open the file in that application, which is pretty standard in Ubuntu.
The touchpad on the Mac is really nice and smooth - that is one thing that Apple obviously took the time to get really right. I would almost wager to say it is one of the best features of the MacBook. The magnetic power cord is often touted as having saved people's laptops on numerous occasions because it came off when the cord was stepped on, but the argument is based on the assumption that the connectors of other laptops will endure loads of force before coming out. My Acer laptop did just fine when you stepped on the cord - it would pop right out of the connector and everything would be safe.
All in all, I find both Ubuntu and OS X to be pretty nice and smooth experiences these days. Ubuntu certainly makes it easier to feel more in control of your PC - OS X tries to hide everything under the GUI whereas there isn't the same fear of that with Ubuntu. The MBP obviously has the advantage of the machine being designed specifically with the operating system in mind and vice versa, but if Dell takes the time to get everything right it could be a very interesting experience.
Actually, w.r.t. parking, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf says that: "Qualified parking is parking provided to employees on or near the business work premises, or parking on or near a location from which employees commute to work by commuter highway vehicle, mass transit, or vanpool. IRC 132(f)(5)(C) The maximum nontaxable value is $240 per month in 2012. PL 111-312; IRC 132(f)(2(B); IR 2011- 104 "
I thought we valued people paying their fair share of taxes.
The Googlers are certainly in the top 5% of earners in the US, many of them are probably in the top 1%.
Why wouldn't you want them paying their fair share?
Are we going to go after schoolchildren that trade desert cups at lunchtime because one has a higher value than another and can be called taxable income? If I pay the check for a date does that mean she has to declare it on her taxes?
Any company that provides free (to the employee) lunch is eating the cost, pardon the pun. If the issue is whether the lunch benefit is taxable, perhaps buying the food from a supplier should already pay the tax. I have no idea if it does right now or not, or what tax arrangements are to be had, but to call this a Google problem is just looking for a reason to be bitchy at those who have more than you.
1. Schoolchildren - no, because that is after tax income and neither party is claiming the dessert cups as an expense which gets deducted off of income. 2. Paying the check - again, no, unless you are claiming that check as a tax deductible expense.
Let's look at the normal scenario for buying lunch: Employer pays employee and deducts salary as a business expense. Employee collects salary and pays tax on income. Employ uses salary to purchase lunch.
In this case, the employee pays the tax on the income that was used to buy the lunch.
And the free lunch scenario: Employer pays employee and deducts salary as a business expense. Employee collects salary and pays tax on income. Employer provides lunch for the employee and claims it as a business expense.
In this case, nobody pays the tax on the income that was used to buy the lunch.
Now I don't know if I would make a thing out of this or not, but I do understand the argument being made and it does some clear that Google employees are getting a tax free benefit.
Well, sure, there is that. I'm curious as to whether there actually is a feedback loop there. i.e. if the junkets are tied to the doctor actually recommending the drug or if they are merely a means of getting information about their drugs into the hands of doctors and the doctors are free to either recommend or not without effect on future junkets.
How is this different from a drug company approaching a doctor and saying 'Hey, I have this medication that can help people undergoing cancer treatment with their nausea.' Then the doctor, who has the personal information of his/her patients, makes targeted suggestions. Do you think the doctor recommends that medication to people with strep throat? Probably not. It's targeted. The drug company is not given any personal information.
Of course - there is a difference - the doctors are not allowed to accept money from the drug companies. The reason for that is because you want the medical advice given by your medical professionals to be unbiased and not slanted by money paid to them by drug companies, because you need to be able to trust that your doctor has your best interests at heart.
Neither Google nor Microsoft have any such relationship with their clients. People do not expect Google's advertisements or Microsoft's advertisements to be sound medical advice. The relationship is pretty transparent and I'm pretty sure everybody knows at least vaguely how those ads got there. But the same situation applies - Google is not passing personal information along to drug companies - they are merely pushing the ads out to those clients that meet certain criteria. Google's advertisers are not being given the personal information.
Slashdot Mirror
Whooooosh
It sounds like it is more about making sure that the buyer is absolutely clear about what she/he is getting. Qualifying buyers means you can at least have a conversation where the purchaser says 'I know there are going to be a *lot* of rough edges and I'm okay with major functionality possibly not working'. Otherwise, you end up with buyers who see the word open and rush to buy it perhaps without realizing what they were getting.
Maybe this fear is founded, maybe it isn't. But I don't see it as being completely unreasonable.
It just seems different to me because of the power issues. It seems helpful to have accountability for police not because they might make a mistake, but because with the power they have it is easy for them to abuse it. It seems to me that a doctor doesn't have that same power. I can't, atm, think of any incentive a doctor would have to give it anything less than his/her best effort. For a police officer, there are so many more factors involved.
Every now and then you hear horror stories about sponges, clamps, and god knows what else being left inside a patient, or a doctor that removes the wrong body part.
"given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"
You know, a lot of people say this. And while it does accomplish that, the implication is that a regular power connector doesn't come out when you pull on it. My Acer laptop has a power connector that comes out just fine with a little bit of force on the cord.
The MacBook is decent and the magnetic power port is an elegant design. It was a major pain when I somehow ended up with a tiny piece of metal stuck in it though. Had a challenging time trying to get it out. Can't shake it out because the magnet holds it on.
The description of the following item seems to suggest that is not the case:
http://www.amazon.com/Passion-Natural-Water-Based-Lubricant-Gallon/dp/B005MR3IVO
That's not really the point of the research though. The research isn't talking about the benefits of being immersed in a culture and spending time among people speaking that language helping make it easier to learn the language. The research seems to be more around the idea of how our environment and context shapes the way that we think. If you read the summary it talks about how the wrong context can affect your ability to speak a language that you know.
If you're in the learning stages of a language, you have to think carefully about every word. But you eventually get to a point where you think and the words come naturally. What the study suggests is that if your brain picks up signals that suggest the context isn't right for the language you want to speak, then it will have trouble.
I'm sure the analogy doesn't hold, but it is sort of like if you went to play baseball on a soccer field your brain having trouble because it isn't expecting to play baseball - it thinks it should be playing soccer.
And I could only assume that they have the technology to deduct to at least some degree of accuracy the identity of a person based on voice. If not, it will come.
If you use WPA2 Enterprise does the client authenticate base station? i.e. if a device finds a base station with the same SSID will it connect to it? If the fake base station also uses WPA2 Enterprise can it trick the device into sending the credentials?
The article talks about a few different things which are only somewhat related. The wifi vulnerability is the fact that an Apple device will automatically connect to a wifi network that has the same SSID as a network it has previously connected to. I suspect this is the same for Android devices, but I am too lazy to test atm.
The issue that relates to https is related to something called HTTP STS. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTTP_Strict_Transport_Security). HTTP STS is supposed to be a way by which servers can communicate to browsers that requests to a particular site should always be sent over https. The issue that is being raised is that Chrome supports HTTP STS and hence Android devices do as well, but Safari does not. I guess what this would get you is that if you connect over https to a site over a trusted network, then further requests to that domain are forced to be made over https with a certain validity of certificate.
I would think we are at least a bit more intelligent because, at least in the west, better supply of food and available information about nutrition means that our brains have more of what they need to develop. You are right - we are better informed - and I think one of the results of this is the knowledge of how to foster brain development.
Small businesses may be running XP still, but at least in the corp I work in, XP/IE8 is alive and well.
Please enlighten me, how exactly does Microsoft's security support matter? No on even remotely sane uses a version of Internet Explorer that works on XP
Except for big corps that still have large proportions of machines with XP.
That's really beside the point, no? The company isn't complaining at all about being locked in to one OS. This is all in response to somebody wondering if the end of XP will bring about wider adoption of Linux. The answer for this person, was no, it won't, because they have software that only runs on Windows. Sometimes it is hard to find software that does the job, and back in the day when XP was still current, limiting selection to cross platform applications would probably have made it impossible. It is important to remember that the concept of cross platform applications (especially Linux) is only in probably the last five years or so beginning to become a reality.
Well, the study was about browsers and not operating systems. I sort of assumed they tested all browsers on Windows in which case that is a controlled variable.
I'm sure they would sponsor a study looking at power usage of Linux vs. Windows vs. OS X. You probably won't see the results of their work unless it is in their favour, and you probably won't see the results of their work w.r.t. desktop Linux as it doesn't have the mindshare that would make it worthwhile to waste advertising space on (few know what Linux actually is, fewer would consider using it, and fewer still would consider using it, would make a decision based on power usage, and would trust a study funded by Microsoft to base a decision on). I say all this as a Linux/OS X user.
I somehow doubt they really did anything to save power. It seems far more likely that they had a lab setup and did measurements and found that IE used less power than the other browsers that they tested and decided to market it.
The summary does a disservice by comparing the power usage to that required to make a cup of tea. If you read the article, it says "Laptops use about 14.7 Watts when idling. Firing up a browser adds another one or two Watts to this, depending which sites are browsed, and which browser you are using, Fraunhofer found. On desktop PCs, browsers add the same amount to the energy draw – but the baseline is around 37.8W."
So what we're talking about for a laptop is a power savings of about 6-7% when idling.
Power savings in computing for things like web browsers is not about saving the world - it is about allowing you to use your device longer. If you can surf for an extra ten minutes by using IE vs. say Google Chrome then that is actually a somewhat interesting differentiator.
I dunno. If you use digits as currency you get built in fingerprints.
Disclaimer: IANAA (I am not an American)
I thought one of the core characteristics of the USA was democracy and the idea that the country is ultimately ruled by the people. As such, there is nothing that excludes somebody from still loving their country but seeing how things are done somewhere else and wondering if it is a good idea.
Of course the USA has different priorities, but aren't those priorities set by the people? If 90% of USAians decide they no longer want to allow people to own guns in their country, does that make it any less USA? (Note, I'm not saying 90% do and I'm not saying guns should be outlawed - just making a point about democracy).
The great thing about democracy is that you have the ability to influence the country in which you live. The great thing about freedom (as you pointed out) is that if you disagree with the rest of your country people you can choose to leave (provided there is somewhere else that will have you).
I believe that as the world changes, so too must people. Representatives are elected to make decisions as to what the priorities should be. The hard part about government is that it seldom happens that people agree on every single issue. It doesn't matter who is elected to govern, both individually and as a collective, they will disagree on *something* with almost everybody in the country.
So to me, to say that there is no room for people to want things to be different is un-'American' - indeed, few politicians get elected on a platform of "I'm going to keep things exactly the same as they are" (as if that is even possible). Rather, most politicians get elected because they have a vision of how their country can be better and a plan for how that might be brought about. If you happen to disagree with choice that your fellow citizens have made, well, you either advocate for your position in hopes that it might be changed, or, as you said, you go somewhere else.
You know, I ended up using a Macbook Pro because that is what the standard config was at work. Fine. I'm learned to adapt, even though Ubuntu is my preference. Overall, I'm pretty happy with it, but it isn't the perfect experience I was lead to believe it would be. I find I have to reboot more often than I did with my Ubuntu laptop. I miss my Home and End keys. Installing applications is confusing sometimes because you download the installer, you click on it, and it takes a few seconds to open. Except in the mean time you aren't sure what is happening so you click on another window and then the installer ends up behind another window and you have no idea where it is. There are other annoying issues. I'm not saying that OS X is awful. I'm only saying that it isn't perfect. Neither is Ubuntu, but I would say that they both have their strong points and their weak points. The biggest issue with Ubuntu, IMO, is the lack of support for it in the enterprise. You can get the VPN software that we use to work on Ubuntu, but don't count on IT to help you with it. Ubuntu is nice because it has a whole library of software that you can install from the repository quickly and easily.
A lot of people grumble about Unity. I'm presuming/hoping these aren't the same people who are OS X fans because Unity, IMO, is basically the OS X dock except moved to the side of the screen (which some people do anyway). OS X tends not to give you a Save As option that you get in most apps on Ubuntu. Also, you don't see to be able to drag files onto applications to open the file in that application, which is pretty standard in Ubuntu.
The touchpad on the Mac is really nice and smooth - that is one thing that Apple obviously took the time to get really right. I would almost wager to say it is one of the best features of the MacBook. The magnetic power cord is often touted as having saved people's laptops on numerous occasions because it came off when the cord was stepped on, but the argument is based on the assumption that the connectors of other laptops will endure loads of force before coming out. My Acer laptop did just fine when you stepped on the cord - it would pop right out of the connector and everything would be safe.
All in all, I find both Ubuntu and OS X to be pretty nice and smooth experiences these days. Ubuntu certainly makes it easier to feel more in control of your PC - OS X tries to hide everything under the GUI whereas there isn't the same fear of that with Ubuntu. The MBP obviously has the advantage of the machine being designed specifically with the operating system in mind and vice versa, but if Dell takes the time to get everything right it could be a very interesting experience.
I find it baffling that Dell would sell a 3rd gen i7 laptop with only 2 gigs of ram.
Actually, w.r.t. parking, http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/fringe_benefit_fslg.pdf says that:
"Qualified parking is parking provided to employees on or near the business work premises, or
parking on or near a location from which employees commute to work by commuter highway
vehicle, mass transit, or vanpool. IRC 132(f)(5)(C)
The maximum nontaxable value is $240 per month in 2012. PL 111-312; IRC 132(f)(2(B); IR 2011-
104 "
No, but you paid taxes on the income that you earned to pay for the raw food used to prepare meals.
I thought we valued people paying their fair share of taxes.
The Googlers are certainly in the top 5% of earners in the US, many of them are probably in the top 1%.
Why wouldn't you want them paying their fair share?
Are we going to go after schoolchildren that trade desert cups at lunchtime because one has a higher value than another and can be called taxable income? If I pay the check for a date does that mean she has to declare it on her taxes?
Any company that provides free (to the employee) lunch is eating the cost, pardon the pun. If the issue is whether the lunch benefit is taxable, perhaps buying the food from a supplier should already pay the tax. I have no idea if it does right now or not, or what tax arrangements are to be had, but to call this a Google problem is just looking for a reason to be bitchy at those who have more than you.
1. Schoolchildren - no, because that is after tax income and neither party is claiming the dessert cups as an expense which gets deducted off of income.
2. Paying the check - again, no, unless you are claiming that check as a tax deductible expense.
Let's look at the normal scenario for buying lunch:
Employer pays employee and deducts salary as a business expense. Employee collects salary and pays tax on income. Employ uses salary to purchase lunch.
In this case, the employee pays the tax on the income that was used to buy the lunch.
And the free lunch scenario:
Employer pays employee and deducts salary as a business expense. Employee collects salary and pays tax on income. Employer provides lunch for the employee and claims it as a business expense.
In this case, nobody pays the tax on the income that was used to buy the lunch.
Now I don't know if I would make a thing out of this or not, but I do understand the argument being made and it does some clear that Google employees are getting a tax free benefit.
Well, sure, there is that. I'm curious as to whether there actually is a feedback loop there. i.e. if the junkets are tied to the doctor actually recommending the drug or if they are merely a means of getting information about their drugs into the hands of doctors and the doctors are free to either recommend or not without effect on future junkets.
How is this different from a drug company approaching a doctor and saying 'Hey, I have this medication that can help people undergoing cancer treatment with their nausea.' Then the doctor, who has the personal information of his/her patients, makes targeted suggestions. Do you think the doctor recommends that medication to people with strep throat? Probably not. It's targeted. The drug company is not given any personal information.
Of course - there is a difference - the doctors are not allowed to accept money from the drug companies. The reason for that is because you want the medical advice given by your medical professionals to be unbiased and not slanted by money paid to them by drug companies, because you need to be able to trust that your doctor has your best interests at heart.
Neither Google nor Microsoft have any such relationship with their clients. People do not expect Google's advertisements or Microsoft's advertisements to be sound medical advice. The relationship is pretty transparent and I'm pretty sure everybody knows at least vaguely how those ads got there. But the same situation applies - Google is not passing personal information along to drug companies - they are merely pushing the ads out to those clients that meet certain criteria. Google's advertisers are not being given the personal information.