Part of it is the fact that there are so many independent data points to remember. In theory SSO-type mechanisms would work but in reality there's a different code, password, PIN, and combination for any number of things.
I work outside of the medical field and we've implemented SSO for quite a few things...and there's still a dozen accounts the typical user needs to know and remember. It basically falls under "yeah SSO for everything...but hey here's this new tool/site/app that you need for some other critical function and it doesn't integrate with our SSO" Oops...
You also have to take into account physical access, not just the interwebz. Drug carts, supply rooms, medical pumps, etc. all need to be protected from the patients that are in the same room/area as they are.
Yeah, someone might remote in and hack the drug cart to open up and dispnse lots of morphine to their friend who stealths in on a fake sickness...or the junkie who goes to the ER every other week for a hot meal and a shower figures out how trivial it is to get into the cart with a a fixed punch-code or when the nurses forget to fully close it and steals 10 amules of morphine.
Just because you can point out a situation within his situation that invalidates it under specific circumstances doesn't invalidate the general premise.
There are many situations where being able to reach someone quickly in an emergency can make a big difference on the outcome.
This is nothing more than a pretentious move by a narcissistic performer who doesn't actually understand the mentality of their fans.
If something is 'free' for you, then you're likely the product. Facebook/google/etc. - your preferences and habits and eyeballs are sold to advertizers. ladies night at bars...yeah the ladies are the product being sold to men willing to come and buy lots of drinks (including for the ladies who otherwise drink for free which i find comical) and the list goes on.
EULA's are comical, ridiculous, and one of these days need to be banned or at least severely curtailed. A ~20+ page 'agreement' which is effectively impossible to understand without a law degree that changes on a whim even for a minor service...it completely ridiculous and abusive.
So your version of enjoy vs. other's version of enjoy. Sorry, I forgot that your preferences trump others just because they're based on an older way of doing things.
Yeah, a sea of cell phone screens is a nusiance at times...but the same argument can be made for people standing, singing along, jumping around, dancing, eating, etc. I think it's comical that performers think cell phone video, even actual camcorder video, from someone in the crowd is going to replace attending a concert. It's about the same as people who watch bootleg DVDs of some just-released movie. They wouldn't have paid to see it in the theatre anyway...but they tell their friends how great it is and some of those invariable DO go see it.
So either the poor have an extraordinarily low (1/10th) drug use rate, opposite of nearly every other notion, understanding, or evidence among those living in poverty...or they're simply better at beating the drug tests.
I hope/. realizes how simplistic it is to beat a urine test...though I sincerely doubt those making the decisions do.
I'm no expert and don't know your situation......but I'm guessing you aren't an expert either. There may be other reasons that make sense why they haven't done this which you don't know or understand. I can't even count the number of times a non-techie suggested a "great idea for IT" that sounded good on paper but was utterly useless or unrealistic.
There's a difference between an agreement (i.e. YOU are signing) and a contract (i.e. both parties sign). Just because you change the wording doesn't mean they accept it. It may render the agreement itself null and void, but the chance of you being able to enforce terms you added and they didn't sign are low.
However, "I don't agree" could be an interesting one as long as it's reasonable legible. Something to keep in mind though - a signature doen't actually have to be your name. Going back to times when people couldn't write, much less sign their names...that's where the "X" comes from and it was (and ostenisble still is) considered a valid, legal signature.
Best to leave it blank if you can get away with it.
Deorbiting (diving into the gravity well) is easier. The atmostphere and gravity do most of the work for you whereas climbing to a higher orbit you're doing all the work. As far as I know, anything in LEO will decay and re-enter all on it's own given some time and a lack of boosting to restore orbit. This (running out of fuel) is what defines EOL for sats.
And at that point SpaceX balances the $ income vs. cost (in $ and complexity and risk) of distributing their operations according to a buyers request. It's incredibly common for large purchasers to put specific terms and requirements around doing business with them. This would be no different.
The advantage of NOT being a government line item is they can say no to things that go beyond their acceptible operational risk. In reality large companies and large $ contracts are very rarely ever black and white on these things. Everything gets negotiated...
Besides...SpaceX can launch at a fraction of NASA's price (oh wait, they don't have an active launch platform at all). The $500m invested is peanuts. It's about the same as the consolidated *per-mission* cost (~$450m) for the Space Shuttle. One can wonder what the per-mission cost for the Falcon will be over it's lifetime...seeing as how they're actively selling launches for ~$60m today.
So you're saying a social website is expected to follow up on any claim of wrong-doing by a member that happens off the site?
With what authority exactly?
Think about that a bit further and decide if you want to give every social site power to judge you a rapist or not based on someone's allegation and the 'due dilligence' of a company aimed at photographers and models, not investagating crimes.
It's a site to bring largely anonymous people together, often in private spaces.
Since the US assumes our citizens are blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid... yes they should, and very likely do, point out that if you Do Things then Bad Things can happen. Like meeting strangers for a modeling shoot in a private venue. Or meeting strangers. Or crossing the street to meet the strangers. Etc. The way the law exists is ridiculous and why everything has a pointless warning label that no one pays attention to.
Putting actual responsibility for the actions of any individual using their website on the owners is utterly impractical. Let's say these guys were previously convicted of rape, did their time, and now are photographers. Should the site disclose that? Should they be responsible to even check? (mind you that's one crime out of a million possible ones) What if there's allegations but no convictions? You can follow the branching logic as far down the rabbit hole as you like and never find the end...for every solution there's an unlimited number of further problems. There's a point where people need to use their own judgment on things. If you're going to meet someone from MM, craigslist, match, tinder, jdate, meetup, or even facebook...you need to evaluate and decide for yourself to do so or not.
It's horrible business, and owners generally do their best to limit things like this anyway...but giving them a legal responsibility is the wrong direction. Site owners are going to go over the top to exclude all responsibility and intentionally distance themselves from any possible information that could say 'they knew' or 'should have known'... and instead of being able to exclude some people when it comes to light they'll simply was their hands of it all. Great idea...
I strongly side with individual freedom and responsibility - with the full understanding that sometimes Bad Things do happen. The TSA is effectively useless at stopping them but comes at a huge cost, inconvenience, and negative impact to many companies (well, except TSA contractors and the vendors in airports who now sell $3+ bottles of water).
It's the same argument I had recently about the bag checks on the NYC subway system. They're useless for anything other than increasing cost and doing "something". Never mind they've caught ZERO bombers. Have they deterred any? Well I guess we'll never know...except for the part where there were also zero bombings in the subway before the bag checks and also there have been zero bombings at stations they didn't have bag checks.
That's something the US "security" seems to blatantly miss... the security lines are easily as good a target as a plane. Hell, they're a BETTER target since you don't actually have to take anything past a security checkpoint to attack them.
It's why most countries with real security concerns break up lines and queues or have a multi-tiered approach.
Or, maybe we could just stop interfering in other countries business, attacking them, or telling people how to live their lives. Nah...that's crazy talk.
'Reasonable' for a dedicated parking spot in Manhattan is about $500/month. There is no open cornfield on the 'edge of town' or quick way to get to one.
There's a world of difference between major metropolitan area like NYC, SF, LA, DC, etc. and a a medium size city in the middle of a much more open area (maybe Albany as an example).
Automated public/mass transit is a much better option in those cases - except for the not-so-minor problem of unions, corruption, and inefficient systems that make provide even better financial benefit to those who own/run them than they do for those who use them.
There's no valid reason that NYC or any other major city with established right of ways can't have fully automated subways or trains running 24/7 on a regular cadence - just running fewer cars at later hours. But nah...that would take away union jobs and we can't have that.
Take some of the $ out of the pockets of shareholders and C-level staff to pay your employees.
It's not that they need to raise prices to stay afloat or profitable. They need to re-balance where they allocate pay and their working capital in general.
But sure, let's take the people who have the least ability to recover from lost jobs and replace them with computers. Let's take the lowest income earners and put them fully into the welfare system.
Actually if we're going to be all constitutional...you'd also have the ability to defend yourself with your own gun. I'd venture to guess that criminals would be a lot less likely to point a gun at a 'helpless' victim if said person had a better than even chance of being armed themselves...or if any bystander was in the same category.
But yea...let's poke at the 2nd amendment as a bad thing when the only PROBLEM with it is that it's not actually being followed.
Actually no. You're not about personal freedom - you're about the exact opposite.
You're talking about taking away freedoms. You're talking about prohibiting people from doing what they want. You're wording it backwards to make it sound like it's your freedom, but it's not the case at all.
What you really mean is you want to control everything that happens in your surrounding environment to suit you, personally, at the expense of others.
Apple just loves to artificially inflate the cost of memory in it's devices to drive up profits. They could easily make a cheap, large iPod...but it would invalidate why they charge so much to get 128GB in an iPhone.
I think your assumptions are far, far off. Broken devices being replaced are a small minority...and there's plenty of repair places to handle them as well.
A $20 case will prevent the large majority of broken phones.
If Apple wants to continue selling so many iPhones, they need to have a new feature that's useful...not just a revision number and slightly changed specs.
Hell, side by side comparison of the camera from my Note 5 and iPhone 6s in 'difficult' settings like concerts, clubs, and other darker places put the Note 5 far, FAR ahead. Beyond that I have chrome, google maps, email contacts and calendar on them all. Minor differences but really...minor differences.
Slashdot Mirror
Part of it is the fact that there are so many independent data points to remember. In theory SSO-type mechanisms would work but in reality there's a different code, password, PIN, and combination for any number of things.
I work outside of the medical field and we've implemented SSO for quite a few things...and there's still a dozen accounts the typical user needs to know and remember. It basically falls under "yeah SSO for everything...but hey here's this new tool/site/app that you need for some other critical function and it doesn't integrate with our SSO" Oops...
You also have to take into account physical access, not just the interwebz. Drug carts, supply rooms, medical pumps, etc. all need to be protected from the patients that are in the same room/area as they are.
Yeah, someone might remote in and hack the drug cart to open up and dispnse lots of morphine to their friend who stealths in on a fake sickness...or the junkie who goes to the ER every other week for a hot meal and a shower figures out how trivial it is to get into the cart with a a fixed punch-code or when the nurses forget to fully close it and steals 10 amules of morphine.
If I wasn't on a conference call I'd be laughing out loud at this...
Move to NY, especially the suburbs of NYC. Moderate risk drivers can pay that per MONTH for full coverage.
Just because you can point out a situation within his situation that invalidates it under specific circumstances doesn't invalidate the general premise.
There are many situations where being able to reach someone quickly in an emergency can make a big difference on the outcome.
This is nothing more than a pretentious move by a narcissistic performer who doesn't actually understand the mentality of their fans.
If something is 'free' for you, then you're likely the product. Facebook/google/etc. - your preferences and habits and eyeballs are sold to advertizers. ladies night at bars...yeah the ladies are the product being sold to men willing to come and buy lots of drinks (including for the ladies who otherwise drink for free which i find comical) and the list goes on.
EULA's are comical, ridiculous, and one of these days need to be banned or at least severely curtailed. A ~20+ page 'agreement' which is effectively impossible to understand without a law degree that changes on a whim even for a minor service...it completely ridiculous and abusive.
So your version of enjoy vs. other's version of enjoy. Sorry, I forgot that your preferences trump others just because they're based on an older way of doing things.
Yeah, a sea of cell phone screens is a nusiance at times...but the same argument can be made for people standing, singing along, jumping around, dancing, eating, etc. I think it's comical that performers think cell phone video, even actual camcorder video, from someone in the crowd is going to replace attending a concert. It's about the same as people who watch bootleg DVDs of some just-released movie. They wouldn't have paid to see it in the theatre anyway...but they tell their friends how great it is and some of those invariable DO go see it.
Don't worry...I'll get off your lawn too.
So either the poor have an extraordinarily low (1/10th) drug use rate, opposite of nearly every other notion, understanding, or evidence among those living in poverty...or they're simply better at beating the drug tests.
I hope /. realizes how simplistic it is to beat a urine test...though I sincerely doubt those making the decisions do.
I'm no expert and don't know your situation... ...but I'm guessing you aren't an expert either. There may be other reasons that make sense why they haven't done this which you don't know or understand. I can't even count the number of times a non-techie suggested a "great idea for IT" that sounded good on paper but was utterly useless or unrealistic.
Or maybe HR is that stupid :)
Which is great unless they manage to freeze your assets while the suit progresses.
There's a difference between an agreement (i.e. YOU are signing) and a contract (i.e. both parties sign). Just because you change the wording doesn't mean they accept it. It may render the agreement itself null and void, but the chance of you being able to enforce terms you added and they didn't sign are low.
However, "I don't agree" could be an interesting one as long as it's reasonable legible. Something to keep in mind though - a signature doen't actually have to be your name. Going back to times when people couldn't write, much less sign their names...that's where the "X" comes from and it was (and ostenisble still is) considered a valid, legal signature.
Best to leave it blank if you can get away with it.
Deorbiting (diving into the gravity well) is easier. The atmostphere and gravity do most of the work for you whereas climbing to a higher orbit you're doing all the work. As far as I know, anything in LEO will decay and re-enter all on it's own given some time and a lack of boosting to restore orbit. This (running out of fuel) is what defines EOL for sats.
And at that point SpaceX balances the $ income vs. cost (in $ and complexity and risk) of distributing their operations according to a buyers request. It's incredibly common for large purchasers to put specific terms and requirements around doing business with them. This would be no different.
The advantage of NOT being a government line item is they can say no to things that go beyond their acceptible operational risk. In reality large companies and large $ contracts are very rarely ever black and white on these things. Everything gets negotiated...
Besides...SpaceX can launch at a fraction of NASA's price (oh wait, they don't have an active launch platform at all). The $500m invested is peanuts. It's about the same as the consolidated *per-mission* cost (~$450m) for the Space Shuttle. One can wonder what the per-mission cost for the Falcon will be over it's lifetime...seeing as how they're actively selling launches for ~$60m today.
In the US, people sometimes bring a lawyer to TRAFFIC court if they want a good chance of having the ticket dismissed.
Litigation is big, HUGE business. Where else can you be on the hook for more than $10,000 for downloading a single mp3?
So you're saying a social website is expected to follow up on any claim of wrong-doing by a member that happens off the site?
With what authority exactly?
Think about that a bit further and decide if you want to give every social site power to judge you a rapist or not based on someone's allegation and the 'due dilligence' of a company aimed at photographers and models, not investagating crimes.
It's a site to bring largely anonymous people together, often in private spaces.
Since the US assumes our citizens are blind, deaf, dumb, and stupid ... yes they should, and very likely do, point out that if you Do Things then Bad Things can happen. Like meeting strangers for a modeling shoot in a private venue. Or meeting strangers. Or crossing the street to meet the strangers. Etc. The way the law exists is ridiculous and why everything has a pointless warning label that no one pays attention to.
Putting actual responsibility for the actions of any individual using their website on the owners is utterly impractical. Let's say these guys were previously convicted of rape, did their time, and now are photographers. Should the site disclose that? Should they be responsible to even check? (mind you that's one crime out of a million possible ones) What if there's allegations but no convictions? You can follow the branching logic as far down the rabbit hole as you like and never find the end...for every solution there's an unlimited number of further problems. There's a point where people need to use their own judgment on things. If you're going to meet someone from MM, craigslist, match, tinder, jdate, meetup, or even facebook...you need to evaluate and decide for yourself to do so or not.
It's horrible business, and owners generally do their best to limit things like this anyway...but giving them a legal responsibility is the wrong direction. Site owners are going to go over the top to exclude all responsibility and intentionally distance themselves from any possible information that could say 'they knew' or 'should have known' ... and instead of being able to exclude some people when it comes to light they'll simply was their hands of it all. Great idea...
Not at all.
I strongly side with individual freedom and responsibility - with the full understanding that sometimes Bad Things do happen. The TSA is effectively useless at stopping them but comes at a huge cost, inconvenience, and negative impact to many companies (well, except TSA contractors and the vendors in airports who now sell $3+ bottles of water).
It's the same argument I had recently about the bag checks on the NYC subway system. They're useless for anything other than increasing cost and doing "something". Never mind they've caught ZERO bombers. Have they deterred any? Well I guess we'll never know...except for the part where there were also zero bombings in the subway before the bag checks and also there have been zero bombings at stations they didn't have bag checks.
That's something the US "security" seems to blatantly miss ... the security lines are easily as good a target as a plane. Hell, they're a BETTER target since you don't actually have to take anything past a security checkpoint to attack them.
It's why most countries with real security concerns break up lines and queues or have a multi-tiered approach.
Or, maybe we could just stop interfering in other countries business, attacking them, or telling people how to live their lives. Nah...that's crazy talk.
They don't? I've seen plenty of hate spew from women about TV programming aimed at men.
Frankly this reads like 'invented' news to me. Take something obvious and put a gender spin on it (next week: same story but race!)
I.e. Group X doesn't find something targeted at Group Y appealing. As in...yeah, I could have told you that.
Isn't that exactly what a taxi does today?
(or uber, car service, etc.)
Granted it's not cheap, but then again neither is owning a car in NYC.
'Reasonable' for a dedicated parking spot in Manhattan is about $500/month. There is no open cornfield on the 'edge of town' or quick way to get to one.
There's a world of difference between major metropolitan area like NYC, SF, LA, DC, etc. and a a medium size city in the middle of a much more open area (maybe Albany as an example).
Automated public/mass transit is a much better option in those cases - except for the not-so-minor problem of unions, corruption, and inefficient systems that make provide even better financial benefit to those who own/run them than they do for those who use them.
There's no valid reason that NYC or any other major city with established right of ways can't have fully automated subways or trains running 24/7 on a regular cadence - just running fewer cars at later hours. But nah...that would take away union jobs and we can't have that.
Take some of the $ out of the pockets of shareholders and C-level staff to pay your employees.
It's not that they need to raise prices to stay afloat or profitable. They need to re-balance where they allocate pay and their working capital in general.
But sure, let's take the people who have the least ability to recover from lost jobs and replace them with computers. Let's take the lowest income earners and put them fully into the welfare system.
Actually if we're going to be all constitutional...you'd also have the ability to defend yourself with your own gun. I'd venture to guess that criminals would be a lot less likely to point a gun at a 'helpless' victim if said person had a better than even chance of being armed themselves...or if any bystander was in the same category.
But yea...let's poke at the 2nd amendment as a bad thing when the only PROBLEM with it is that it's not actually being followed.
Actually no. You're not about personal freedom - you're about the exact opposite.
You're talking about taking away freedoms. You're talking about prohibiting people from doing what they want. You're wording it backwards to make it sound like it's your freedom, but it's not the case at all.
What you really mean is you want to control everything that happens in your surrounding environment to suit you, personally, at the expense of others.
The tech 'challenges' in getting an iPod classic to accept flash are ... uhm ... how to put it. Solved.
They use a standard (in antiquated) interface which you can readily buy an adapter to use an SD card.
http://www.imore.com/iflash-co...
$60 buys you a 256GB flash drive from a dozen different retailers
Apple just loves to artificially inflate the cost of memory in it's devices to drive up profits. They could easily make a cheap, large iPod ...but it would invalidate why they charge so much to get 128GB in an iPhone.
I think your assumptions are far, far off. Broken devices being replaced are a small minority...and there's plenty of repair places to handle them as well.
A $20 case will prevent the large majority of broken phones.
If Apple wants to continue selling so many iPhones, they need to have a new feature that's useful...not just a revision number and slightly changed specs.
Hell, side by side comparison of the camera from my Note 5 and iPhone 6s in 'difficult' settings like concerts, clubs, and other darker places put the Note 5 far, FAR ahead. Beyond that I have chrome, google maps, email contacts and calendar on them all. Minor differences but really...minor differences.