Don't worry, nobody is going to take your arm (it's too large to carry.) The chip is not that deep, so a small incision with a sharp boxcutter will allow the attacker to pull the capsule out. He only may need to explore a bit (with that knife) around the needle scar:-( Chances are very good that you will survive, especially if the attacker knows how to avoid major blood vessels, and if the knife is clean, and if you don't need that arm that much. Just choose your attackers carefully and check their medical diplomas before they do it to you.
What I find distressing about all the anti-Google stuff going on is that people seem to have so little faith in Google.
As Google's power grows, that power starts corrupting Google. It's inevitable. Those idealistic founders may still hug trees and wear heart-warming slogans on their shirts, but seasoned business executives know better how to milk the cash cow. And they are in charge now.
Yet, have they really ever betrayed us?
You are assuming a dichotomy where none exists. Hardly ever betrayals are so clear-cut. Your local politician may promise $foo, but after one month on the job he says $bar is better - did he betray you, or he simply knows better now? If in a war a soldier tells his girlfriend that his unit is short on ammo, and the GF is with resistance, is it a betrayal? I would expect a smooth, gentle slide from "do no evil" to "do no evil unless you don't mind, and we give you a candy for that" to then "do no evil unless you fail to enter a 26-digit prime number here and now to opt out" to... you see my point. And that's what is happening.
I, for one, believe that Google is on the side of the users.
You are personifying a company - a collective organism who does not think as humans do, and does not behave as humans do. It is genetically hardwired to get as much money out of you, me and everyone as it legally can. I would be wary of such an animal.
By going from nothing to superstar based almost entirely on word-of-mouth, Google demonstrated how powerful cultivating user trust can be
Mixing the "Google as a startup in a garage" with the "Google as a billion dollar publicly owned business" here. They are not the same, and different people are at the helm now. They don't care what the founders thought back then. They are not the founders.
He can't enter your apartment without your permission; but exception exists for emergency access. This exception applies to anything, however; if your private home is on fire, expect firefighters and heroes to break in and try to save someone.
Can the service provider hurt my privacy?
Yes. Your personal info can be stolen or legally accessed by law enforcement armed with nothing more than a permission slip from a judge.
I believe storing your index in Google server is the same thing.
Well, if you already face two threats why to seek more?
The difference here is that google makes them searchable.
No, the difference is that all your files end up on Google servers if this feature is enabled. This is not the case with "remote storage" services, where you have to copy the file to the remote site in order for it to be there.
Also, you don't know when the indexing is occurring - and likely it is happening immediately after you create a file. So here is a possible scenario: you click on a link and end up at a [child] pr0n site. You hurriedly close the browser, but it's too late - your browsing history, as well as all downloaded images, have been already indexed and sent to Google. You only need to wait a few minutes for your AG's computer to query the database, search for known child pr0n URLs and have you arrested.
Something like this is going to be a nightmare to many corporations!
I will be banning Google Desktop, any version, from the company's computers tomorrow morning. It's unlikely that there would be a security leak, but you never know which one employee is over-enthusiastic and is willing to play with someone's else data.
The feature does not come enabled by default, so what is he is talking about?
Probably about people who like to enable everything to get the most from their computers? Granted, that wouldn't be very smart, but we aren't talking about "smart" in this context. This should not be even possible.
Mark it as one more reason to completely ban Google Desktop from business environments. If you have 100 desktops deployed, chances are that there would be one employee that enables this feature - and includes all company's shared drives to be indexed as well (just because s/he may like to work from home once in a while.) And once the company's information is out there, it stays out there, as far as you know.
I can see this as being the driver behind corporate policies that will lead to the banning of gmail.com.
Another, more apparent, reason is that corporations don't like to pay people for chatting with their friends. That applies to Webmail too, but IM is more addictive and more disruptive to the work schedule.
Where I work we have an internal Jabber server and Psi/Exodus/Kopete clients. When people want to ask a simple question they don't walk to the other person; even if the question is not simple and requires a meeting it's still easier to find out if the other guy is here and free to talk, and not on lunch or already in another meeting... saves time and stops this wasteful walking, which can lead to exercise:-)
Some companies aren't even consistant across all their camera lines. And of course, the formats or algorithms are in varying states of copyright, patent, or trade secret.
It doesn't matter, as long as his camera comes with the software that does the job. If gorim needs RAW, for whatever goal, then GIMP is not an option for him. When people spend big bucks on good cameras they probably know what they are doing.
Besides, those software tools often cost so much (from 1 to 40 thousand dollars) that saving on the OS is ridiculous. Often an entire computer is bought and reserved for this one application, especially if it needs an expensive video card (AutoCAD), fast CPU (Microwave Office or CST or Ansoft) or when the software license is tied to the hardware.
Open your mailbox and have a look at 100+ flyers from the neighborhood's stores. The flyers are all images. Each image is made by a professional - at least because the creator of the image was paid for his work. There is a huge market for image making and processing.
Time is generally regarded as a "special case", in that it is not possible to move backwards in time, or rotate an object such that the time axis is pointing along a space axis and vice versa.
And how is it different from the Flatland, with all its inhabitants, falling in a large, uniform gravity field? Like, maybe, bacteria on the surface of a dropped dish? To them the 3rd dimension (which is real enough to us) would look just like our own perception of time - things changing around them, with no control over that transformation.
I love to see a gigasample per second ADC, that would be a thing to behold!
You can already build a 1 GSa/s ADC with four AD9480's - however you'd need about 10 to 50 W of power to process the data. The power requirements for SDRs are often extreme, and that is the reason why they are not used everywhere. They are simply not needed in most of cost-constrained devices; and where they are needed they are used sparingly, processing only what must be processed.
Enumeration by omission - hard to wrap an average mind about it
Buried way too deep in the document and is too brief, enough to be ignored
Logically inconsistent: some rights are enumerated, other are not, and among the latter some rights are indeed rights and other are not (you have a right to stand on your head: true; you have a right to kick your neighbor's dog: false)
Your case has nothing to do with the right of the officer to ask for an ID. Let's assume he had it all along. You were pleading "no contest" to a charge of obstruction of justice resulting from you not having an ID on you, and you were not required by law to have it on you.
I don't see how you could have been convicted of obstruction of justice if it was not in your power to comply with the officer's request - especially when you were prevented from complying by the said officer. There is a specific legal term for that, something like "not guilty of $FOO because the defendant was not in control of $FOO." For example, you can't be convicted for a road accident if you were not driving, standing, walking or otherwise participating in that accident. Your case would be open and shut if you decided to fight it.
This condition will be usually false. It is a bad idea to compare floating point numbers unless you are very, very sure what they are. And if your rand() returns a FP number instead of the usual [0..RAND_MAX-1], then it's unwise to expect that all 32 or 64 or 80 bits of two floating point numbers will exactly match each other.
if while your on vacation, I found a note intended for someone else
That note would be private correspondence, not intended for you, and already protected in many ways. However patents are public documents, available to anyone who can read (and maybe pay a small fee.) There hardly can be any restriction on anyone expressing his opinion about a public document.
I was actually thinking of equipment, including safety gear. There are currently regulations that treat sligtly irradiated equipment, such as clean suits and masks and so on, as needing disposal in the same manner of radioactive material.
It depends on your threshold of comfort. For example, the gloves emit 1 mR/h (100x over the background level.) Will you use them for housecleaning? Will you want them to be burned, and the radioactive ash buried? The water will get to the ash, and you may see the pollutants in your water, and in your fish, and in your cows... Let's say, a glass of milk is 10x over the background radiation - will you drink it? Will you let your child to drink it? How much must it be over the background level until you refuse to drink it?
That's an impossible question to answer, really, because it's impossible to trace the pollution through the recycling and reuse and disposal processes of normal, "clean" waste. That's why it is often easier to mark it all as "dangerous" and dispose of it in a safe way, even though it's an overkill for most of those slightly contaminated items. But it will be more expensive to process them one by one, with all the necessary protection, measuring and sorting and paperwork and human errors that are unavoidable.
It isn't much different. Regular materials, after being exposed to high energy particles, become radioactive, much worse than the original, clean uranium was. After your reactor's service life ends you have to dismantle tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive materials. It is extremely expensive. And then you have to dump them somewhere, for a long period of time (practically forever, as far as humans are concerned.)
Indeed, that's an excellent reason why armored vehicles (like tanks) are no longer used in modern armies: a single hit into a vulnerable part can disable them. You don't use anything that is not completely, 100% perfect. Never mind that a single land-bound tank, while it lasts, can break through defenses that otherwise would be impenetrable. There simply would be no military value in a tank that can run, climb, jump - even if it has some limited flight capability. Just think of it, what if it gets destroyed while doing its job?
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry, nobody is going to take your arm (it's too large to carry.) The chip is not that deep, so a small incision with a sharp boxcutter will allow the attacker to pull the capsule out. He only may need to explore a bit (with that knife) around the needle scar :-( Chances are very good that you will survive, especially if the attacker knows how to avoid major blood vessels, and if the knife is clean, and if you don't need that arm that much. Just choose your attackers carefully and check their medical diplomas before they do it to you.
As Google's power grows, that power starts corrupting Google. It's inevitable. Those idealistic founders may still hug trees and wear heart-warming slogans on their shirts, but seasoned business executives know better how to milk the cash cow. And they are in charge now.
Yet, have they really ever betrayed us?
You are assuming a dichotomy where none exists. Hardly ever betrayals are so clear-cut. Your local politician may promise $foo, but after one month on the job he says $bar is better - did he betray you, or he simply knows better now? If in a war a soldier tells his girlfriend that his unit is short on ammo, and the GF is with resistance, is it a betrayal? I would expect a smooth, gentle slide from "do no evil" to "do no evil unless you don't mind, and we give you a candy for that" to then "do no evil unless you fail to enter a 26-digit prime number here and now to opt out" to ... you see my point. And that's what is happening.
I, for one, believe that Google is on the side of the users.
You are personifying a company - a collective organism who does not think as humans do, and does not behave as humans do. It is genetically hardwired to get as much money out of you, me and everyone as it legally can. I would be wary of such an animal.
By going from nothing to superstar based almost entirely on word-of-mouth, Google demonstrated how powerful cultivating user trust can be
Mixing the "Google as a startup in a garage" with the "Google as a billion dollar publicly owned business" here. They are not the same, and different people are at the helm now. They don't care what the founders thought back then. They are not the founders.
What options will Google have, other than to lose 1/4 of Earth's population as its customers?
Yes, if the judge says so.
Can the apartment owner hurt my privacy?
He can't enter your apartment without your permission; but exception exists for emergency access. This exception applies to anything, however; if your private home is on fire, expect firefighters and heroes to break in and try to save someone.
Can the service provider hurt my privacy?
Yes. Your personal info can be stolen or legally accessed by law enforcement armed with nothing more than a permission slip from a judge.
I believe storing your index in Google server is the same thing.
Well, if you already face two threats why to seek more?
No, the difference is that all your files end up on Google servers if this feature is enabled. This is not the case with "remote storage" services, where you have to copy the file to the remote site in order for it to be there.
Also, you don't know when the indexing is occurring - and likely it is happening immediately after you create a file. So here is a possible scenario: you click on a link and end up at a [child] pr0n site. You hurriedly close the browser, but it's too late - your browsing history, as well as all downloaded images, have been already indexed and sent to Google. You only need to wait a few minutes for your AG's computer to query the database, search for known child pr0n URLs and have you arrested.
I will be banning Google Desktop, any version, from the company's computers tomorrow morning. It's unlikely that there would be a security leak, but you never know which one employee is over-enthusiastic and is willing to play with someone's else data.
Probably about people who like to enable everything to get the most from their computers? Granted, that wouldn't be very smart, but we aren't talking about "smart" in this context. This should not be even possible.
Mark it as one more reason to completely ban Google Desktop from business environments. If you have 100 desktops deployed, chances are that there would be one employee that enables this feature - and includes all company's shared drives to be indexed as well (just because s/he may like to work from home once in a while.) And once the company's information is out there, it stays out there, as far as you know.
Another, more apparent, reason is that corporations don't like to pay people for chatting with their friends. That applies to Webmail too, but IM is more addictive and more disruptive to the work schedule.
Where I work we have an internal Jabber server and Psi/Exodus/Kopete clients. When people want to ask a simple question they don't walk to the other person; even if the question is not simple and requires a meeting it's still easier to find out if the other guy is here and free to talk, and not on lunch or already in another meeting... saves time and stops this wasteful walking, which can lead to exercise :-)
It doesn't matter, as long as his camera comes with the software that does the job. If gorim needs RAW, for whatever goal, then GIMP is not an option for him. When people spend big bucks on good cameras they probably know what they are doing.
Besides, those software tools often cost so much (from 1 to 40 thousand dollars) that saving on the OS is ridiculous. Often an entire computer is bought and reserved for this one application, especially if it needs an expensive video card (AutoCAD), fast CPU (Microwave Office or CST or Ansoft) or when the software license is tied to the hardware.
Open your mailbox and have a look at 100+ flyers from the neighborhood's stores. The flyers are all images. Each image is made by a professional - at least because the creator of the image was paid for his work. There is a huge market for image making and processing.
And how is it different from the Flatland, with all its inhabitants, falling in a large, uniform gravity field? Like, maybe, bacteria on the surface of a dropped dish? To them the 3rd dimension (which is real enough to us) would look just like our own perception of time - things changing around them, with no control over that transformation.
You can already build a 1 GSa/s ADC with four AD9480's - however you'd need about 10 to 50 W of power to process the data. The power requirements for SDRs are often extreme, and that is the reason why they are not used everywhere. They are simply not needed in most of cost-constrained devices; and where they are needed they are used sparingly, processing only what must be processed.
For longer than that - since mines with built-in detonators were invented. They were used as far back as World War I, for example.
Here and in many other places.
I don't see how you could have been convicted of obstruction of justice if it was not in your power to comply with the officer's request - especially when you were prevented from complying by the said officer. There is a specific legal term for that, something like "not guilty of $FOO because the defendant was not in control of $FOO." For example, you can't be convicted for a road accident if you were not driving, standing, walking or otherwise participating in that accident. Your case would be open and shut if you decided to fight it.
This condition will be usually false. It is a bad idea to compare floating point numbers unless you are very, very sure what they are. And if your rand() returns a FP number instead of the usual [0..RAND_MAX-1], then it's unwise to expect that all 32 or 64 or 80 bits of two floating point numbers will exactly match each other.
That note would be private correspondence, not intended for you, and already protected in many ways. However patents are public documents, available to anyone who can read (and maybe pay a small fee.) There hardly can be any restriction on anyone expressing his opinion about a public document.
It depends on your threshold of comfort. For example, the gloves emit 1 mR/h (100x over the background level.) Will you use them for housecleaning? Will you want them to be burned, and the radioactive ash buried? The water will get to the ash, and you may see the pollutants in your water, and in your fish, and in your cows... Let's say, a glass of milk is 10x over the background radiation - will you drink it? Will you let your child to drink it? How much must it be over the background level until you refuse to drink it?
That's an impossible question to answer, really, because it's impossible to trace the pollution through the recycling and reuse and disposal processes of normal, "clean" waste. That's why it is often easier to mark it all as "dangerous" and dispose of it in a safe way, even though it's an overkill for most of those slightly contaminated items. But it will be more expensive to process them one by one, with all the necessary protection, measuring and sorting and paperwork and human errors that are unavoidable.
It isn't much different. Regular materials, after being exposed to high energy particles, become radioactive, much worse than the original, clean uranium was. After your reactor's service life ends you have to dismantle tens of thousands of tons of highly radioactive materials. It is extremely expensive. And then you have to dump them somewhere, for a long period of time (practically forever, as far as humans are concerned.)
In other words, if at a dinner table you are offered to choose between a spoon and a Rube Goldberg machine which functions as a spoon, take the spoon.
Indeed, that's an excellent reason why armored vehicles (like tanks) are no longer used in modern armies: a single hit into a vulnerable part can disable them. You don't use anything that is not completely, 100% perfect. Never mind that a single land-bound tank, while it lasts, can break through defenses that otherwise would be impenetrable. There simply would be no military value in a tank that can run, climb, jump - even if it has some limited flight capability. Just think of it, what if it gets destroyed while doing its job?