It is because it isn't costing them the 20 grand if the customer doesn't pay. They do a credit check because they are giving you the loan of the phone, which is paid off over time. Their marginal costs for the 20k worth of service was minuscule (i am guessing pennies) so it isn't necessary to cut the service to prevent a bigger loss. If they pay, great pure profit; if they don't, they are out a couple pennies.
Nah, you can have a negative percent chance of succeeding in a task. For example, if you have a -5% chance of succeeding, not only will you fail every time you make an attempt, you will also fail 1 in 20 times that you don't even try.
Without special legislation prohibiting it, I doubt saying "Tested for Mad Cow" or labeling the beef as such would be a fraud. They did do just that; test for mad cow. It is just that the test can't detect the disease in its early stages. A label doesn't have to state all of the flaws in a test to say that it tests.
I think you have just shown a perfect example of why we need television that isn't funded by advertisers. PBS can air the show because they aren't driven by profit and aren't beholden to those corporations (although even that is starting to change with corporate sponsorship of PBS). While you can argue that public television is beholden to the government, at least it is beholden to a (slightly) different power.
woh slow down... reading the summary is one thing, but I think it is against the slashdot TOS to read the actual article before posting a comment... unless the comment is to admonish someone else for not having RTFA
Umm it IS an internet connection. It is for a data plan... that means internet... this is for a wireless card that you plug in to your computer to get internet access. In fact, it has no voice plan.. you can't use it as a cell phone. Did you even read the SUMMARY? It says that lots of Canadians who live in rural areas use it because it is the ONLY (meaning no alternatives) way of getting broadband internet access.
If you are able to remember random fake answers to questions, then you probably aren't going to be the type who needs to reset your password. Resetting your password is only something that matters if you have trouble remembering random secure things anyway. You basically just have two passwords now, either of which can open your account (which may or may not be all you are looking for).
My company recently made attempted to implement an OpenID login option for our website. We quickly abandoned the idea because it was simply a horrible user experience. For those of you who are unaware of how openid works here are the steps to sign in with openid:
1) First you have to enter a URL which is your openid login. For example, if yahoo is your openid provider, you would enter http://openid.yahoo.com/cortesoft. Right off the bat, you already have to enter a ridiculously long user id.
2) Once you enter the URL, that is passed on to the openid provider. Using the yahoo example, you then have to sign in to yahoo if you aren't already signed in on this computer to prove you are the owner of that openid URL.
3) You are then asked to check a box giving the requesting site permission to use this openid. In yahoo's case it also requires entering a CAPTCHA. This is to ensure that the requesting site isn't merely nefariously requesting an OpenID without the user's permission.
4) Yahoo authenticates to the requesting site that you are logged in, and you are finally signed on.
Of course, it is slightly easier on subsequent visits. The authorization process is shorter, but you still have to sign in to your openID provider and enter a URL.
Just look at how simple the alternative is: A user simply enters a username and password and BAM they have a new account. They can even choose the same one as they used on other sites if they want the same username and login across multiple sites. Users bounce at any sign of difficulty in the signup process. OpenID is a huge barrier to entry, so we scrapped the id of using it.
This would be true, but not everyone who matches is going to be able to have committed the crime. For example, a lot of the people who are in the Database are in prison. That is a pretty good alibi. Many of the people are going to be so far away geographically from the crime committed that they will be dismissed as suspects after cursory investigation. The odds of a false positive get MUCH smaller require that the false positive sample in CODIS must come from someone who is close enough to the crime scene and lacks a credible alibi.
But they still have your IP address. Which yes, is not as personally identifiable as a username, but it is identifying enough to get sued by the **AA.
Also this is not talking about google searches, but youtube searches.
I am not usually one to jump on the anti-regulation bandwagon. I appreciate the need for restrictions on many practices, and regulatory agencies to make sure people practicing in the industry are competent and perform their jobs safely. HOWEVER, this seems like something that should be outside the realms of regulation (of this sort). There is no medicine being practiced here; there is no diagnosis, no prescription, no anything of that sort going on. They don't perform an exam, they don't even touch the customer (in fact I am pretty sure these companies don't even SEE their customers). In fact, I find it hard to even classify what they are doing as being in the medical field at all - they don't claim to diagnose or cure any disease. Given the rampant availability of 'natural' cures for things that have no regulatory body overseeing them, why is this something that needs to be regulated? Those 'natural' cures and supplements ARE saying they cure diseases(disclaimers not withstanding), with zero regulatory oversight. How is knowing my DNA sequence more dangerous to me than taking unknown, unregulated herbal supplements?
The government's job shouldn't be to require someone act as a filter for my own personal information. My own personal information is not 'dangerous', and I do not need someone holding my hand while I find out about it; if we hold to this view, how is it different than saying "We need to restrict public access to this information about scientology because if people read about it without someone to interpret it for them, they might believe it to be true and that could cause them harm." I can protect myself from this dangerous information, thank you very much.
The article says it is being proposed by Home Office "officials", yet the only person from the home office mentioned by name seems to be clearly against the proposal. I have a feeling that this was just something discussed, maybe brought up in a meeting in the Home Office, but has never been actually proposed officially. In fact, the article seems to confirm this, as evidenced by the line
Home Office officials have discussed the option of the national database with telecommunications companies and ISPs as part of preparations for a data communications Bill to be in Novemberâ(TM)s Queenâ(TM)s Speech. But the plan has not been sent to ministers yet. Of course things like this will be discussed amongst government officials, and talking to the telecoms to find out the technical feasibility would be something done early in the process. I would start to be concerned if this was officially proposed, and then really concerned if it was accepted and enacted.
Now I know my story isn't typical, but you make it sound like there are such hard and fast rules that I had to object. I went to UCLA as a philosophy student... never took a computer programming class there. In fact, the only CS class I ever took was a intro to programming class at the local community college when I was in highschool. I taught myself how to program when I was 8 years old and have been programming on my own ever since. When I graduated from college, I worked on a project with a friend of mine for a while (no money, just for fun). Without a single day of professional experience, I had recruiters calling me offering me high paying jobs. I eventually found one I liked and got a contract for 70k a year, with no professional experience and no CS background. All the companies I interviewed with didn't care about my education or professional experience, they simply looked at the project I had been working on, gave me a few programming tests, and offered me a job. They care if you can program, not if you have a piece of paper.
One caveat for my experience; I live in the San Francisco, and there are a TON of companies looking for skilled programmers, and there just aren't enough. My company had to pay the recruiter that found me $15,000 to find me, and that was a negotiated discount from the standard rate. If you have skills, it doesn't matter your education.
If someone designs a 'supercomputer' that is faster than a home PC and is affordable to a home user..... wouldn't that just become the new computer? A supercomputer is by definition a computer that is better than one that a normal home user could afford.
You (and I for that matter) may be in the minority in this. While I use all the tools I have available to avoid viewing ads, I don't think most people do. According to this article and a few others I have read, most people end up watching Tivod commercials anyway. I am not sure why, but I think some people like ads to some extent - they may feel it keeps them up to date on popular culture, or they may actually be interested in new products (I am completely speculating here of course). Given a choice to never have to see ads again, I am not sure if as many people would choose to as you might think.
Except they are actually double feeding off innocent people.... some poor chap's info gets stolen by both the guy who deployed the phishing kit and the guy who wrote it.... which means its probably at least twice as likely to get used for fraud.
College degrees are overrated in the tech industry. Sure I have a bachelors degree from the best university ever (UCLA), but it is in philosophy. Sure, I think philosophy and programming are related, but most people don't. But I got a great programming job right out of college because I actually knew how to program. My employer didn't even look at my degree, just looked at some projects I had done before and hired me. Both my employer and I have had great success ever since.
The survey question was which generation is the toughest to manage... meaning at least one generation has to be the toughest. The question wasn't "Are your employees aged 18-31 tough to manage?" Since most of the managers are probably older, it is natural that the generation furthest from their age would be the toughest for them to manage. They are the most foreign in terms of experience, lifestyle, life stage, and expectations. I am in fact surprised that it was only 50% who chose the youngest generation. Given the size of the generations listed in the survey, there is most likely only 4 generations at most who are working - 18-31, 32-42, 43-53, 54-65. Given the general youth in the IT field, most of the people who have to be managed in IT will be from the younger generations, making them more likely to be the most difficult to manage. In addition the article states that 'Twenty-three percent of respondents said retaining existing staff is the top concern, while 22% said they struggle to find new qualified candidates.' If this is the case, then clearly they AREN'T paying enough, as the demand out paces supply. I find the whole tone of the summary a bit misleading.
Umm there already is a pair of glasses like these commercially available, so it is not exactly vaporwear... www.myvu.com
They are for sale and everything... in fact I have a pair, and they work great.
Slashdot Mirror
It is because it isn't costing them the 20 grand if the customer doesn't pay. They do a credit check because they are giving you the loan of the phone, which is paid off over time. Their marginal costs for the 20k worth of service was minuscule (i am guessing pennies) so it isn't necessary to cut the service to prevent a bigger loss. If they pay, great pure profit; if they don't, they are out a couple pennies.
Nah, you can have a negative percent chance of succeeding in a task. For example, if you have a -5% chance of succeeding, not only will you fail every time you make an attempt, you will also fail 1 in 20 times that you don't even try.
Without special legislation prohibiting it, I doubt saying "Tested for Mad Cow" or labeling the beef as such would be a fraud. They did do just that; test for mad cow. It is just that the test can't detect the disease in its early stages. A label doesn't have to state all of the flaws in a test to say that it tests.
I think you have just shown a perfect example of why we need television that isn't funded by advertisers. PBS can air the show because they aren't driven by profit and aren't beholden to those corporations (although even that is starting to change with corporate sponsorship of PBS). While you can argue that public television is beholden to the government, at least it is beholden to a (slightly) different power.
woh slow down... reading the summary is one thing, but I think it is against the slashdot TOS to read the actual article before posting a comment... unless the comment is to admonish someone else for not having RTFA
Umm it IS an internet connection. It is for a data plan... that means internet... this is for a wireless card that you plug in to your computer to get internet access. In fact, it has no voice plan.. you can't use it as a cell phone. Did you even read the SUMMARY? It says that lots of Canadians who live in rural areas use it because it is the ONLY (meaning no alternatives) way of getting broadband internet access.
The mafia holds elections, has a constitution, and has established a formal system of checks and balances? Interesting....
If you are able to remember random fake answers to questions, then you probably aren't going to be the type who needs to reset your password. Resetting your password is only something that matters if you have trouble remembering random secure things anyway. You basically just have two passwords now, either of which can open your account (which may or may not be all you are looking for).
My company recently made attempted to implement an OpenID login option for our website. We quickly abandoned the idea because it was simply a horrible user experience. For those of you who are unaware of how openid works here are the steps to sign in with openid: 1) First you have to enter a URL which is your openid login. For example, if yahoo is your openid provider, you would enter http://openid.yahoo.com/cortesoft. Right off the bat, you already have to enter a ridiculously long user id. 2) Once you enter the URL, that is passed on to the openid provider. Using the yahoo example, you then have to sign in to yahoo if you aren't already signed in on this computer to prove you are the owner of that openid URL. 3) You are then asked to check a box giving the requesting site permission to use this openid. In yahoo's case it also requires entering a CAPTCHA. This is to ensure that the requesting site isn't merely nefariously requesting an OpenID without the user's permission. 4) Yahoo authenticates to the requesting site that you are logged in, and you are finally signed on. Of course, it is slightly easier on subsequent visits. The authorization process is shorter, but you still have to sign in to your openID provider and enter a URL. Just look at how simple the alternative is: A user simply enters a username and password and BAM they have a new account. They can even choose the same one as they used on other sites if they want the same username and login across multiple sites. Users bounce at any sign of difficulty in the signup process. OpenID is a huge barrier to entry, so we scrapped the id of using it.
OpenID doesn't work like this. The user names are tied to a site. So your myspace OpenID would be something like http://myspace.com/hockeypuck. Someone else could have http://othersite.com/hockeypuck
This would be true, but not everyone who matches is going to be able to have committed the crime. For example, a lot of the people who are in the Database are in prison. That is a pretty good alibi. Many of the people are going to be so far away geographically from the crime committed that they will be dismissed as suspects after cursory investigation. The odds of a false positive get MUCH smaller require that the false positive sample in CODIS must come from someone who is close enough to the crime scene and lacks a credible alibi.
If it really is a domesday scenario, we can always call on Max Rockatansky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hQC3nkftrk&feature=related
But they still have your IP address. Which yes, is not as personally identifiable as a username, but it is identifying enough to get sued by the **AA. Also this is not talking about google searches, but youtube searches.
I am not usually one to jump on the anti-regulation bandwagon. I appreciate the need for restrictions on many practices, and regulatory agencies to make sure people practicing in the industry are competent and perform their jobs safely. HOWEVER, this seems like something that should be outside the realms of regulation (of this sort). There is no medicine being practiced here; there is no diagnosis, no prescription, no anything of that sort going on. They don't perform an exam, they don't even touch the customer (in fact I am pretty sure these companies don't even SEE their customers). In fact, I find it hard to even classify what they are doing as being in the medical field at all - they don't claim to diagnose or cure any disease. Given the rampant availability of 'natural' cures for things that have no regulatory body overseeing them, why is this something that needs to be regulated? Those 'natural' cures and supplements ARE saying they cure diseases(disclaimers not withstanding), with zero regulatory oversight. How is knowing my DNA sequence more dangerous to me than taking unknown, unregulated herbal supplements? The government's job shouldn't be to require someone act as a filter for my own personal information. My own personal information is not 'dangerous', and I do not need someone holding my hand while I find out about it; if we hold to this view, how is it different than saying "We need to restrict public access to this information about scientology because if people read about it without someone to interpret it for them, they might believe it to be true and that could cause them harm." I can protect myself from this dangerous information, thank you very much.
Damn it feels good to be a gangsta.
Now I know my story isn't typical, but you make it sound like there are such hard and fast rules that I had to object. I went to UCLA as a philosophy student... never took a computer programming class there. In fact, the only CS class I ever took was a intro to programming class at the local community college when I was in highschool. I taught myself how to program when I was 8 years old and have been programming on my own ever since. When I graduated from college, I worked on a project with a friend of mine for a while (no money, just for fun). Without a single day of professional experience, I had recruiters calling me offering me high paying jobs. I eventually found one I liked and got a contract for 70k a year, with no professional experience and no CS background. All the companies I interviewed with didn't care about my education or professional experience, they simply looked at the project I had been working on, gave me a few programming tests, and offered me a job. They care if you can program, not if you have a piece of paper. One caveat for my experience; I live in the San Francisco, and there are a TON of companies looking for skilled programmers, and there just aren't enough. My company had to pay the recruiter that found me $15,000 to find me, and that was a negotiated discount from the standard rate. If you have skills, it doesn't matter your education.
If someone designs a 'supercomputer' that is faster than a home PC and is affordable to a home user..... wouldn't that just become the new computer? A supercomputer is by definition a computer that is better than one that a normal home user could afford.
Floss your teeth while reading slashdot.
You (and I for that matter) may be in the minority in this. While I use all the tools I have available to avoid viewing ads, I don't think most people do. According to this article and a few others I have read, most people end up watching Tivod commercials anyway. I am not sure why, but I think some people like ads to some extent - they may feel it keeps them up to date on popular culture, or they may actually be interested in new products (I am completely speculating here of course). Given a choice to never have to see ads again, I am not sure if as many people would choose to as you might think.
Except they are actually double feeding off innocent people.... some poor chap's info gets stolen by both the guy who deployed the phishing kit and the guy who wrote it.... which means its probably at least twice as likely to get used for fraud.
I know a bot. Her name is Anna. Anna is her name. http://youtube.com/watch?v=bpRRVS1ci40
College degrees are overrated in the tech industry. Sure I have a bachelors degree from the best university ever (UCLA), but it is in philosophy. Sure, I think philosophy and programming are related, but most people don't. But I got a great programming job right out of college because I actually knew how to program. My employer didn't even look at my degree, just looked at some projects I had done before and hired me. Both my employer and I have had great success ever since.
The survey question was which generation is the toughest to manage... meaning at least one generation has to be the toughest. The question wasn't "Are your employees aged 18-31 tough to manage?" Since most of the managers are probably older, it is natural that the generation furthest from their age would be the toughest for them to manage. They are the most foreign in terms of experience, lifestyle, life stage, and expectations. I am in fact surprised that it was only 50% who chose the youngest generation. Given the size of the generations listed in the survey, there is most likely only 4 generations at most who are working - 18-31, 32-42, 43-53, 54-65. Given the general youth in the IT field, most of the people who have to be managed in IT will be from the younger generations, making them more likely to be the most difficult to manage. In addition the article states that 'Twenty-three percent of respondents said retaining existing staff is the top concern, while 22% said they struggle to find new qualified candidates.' If this is the case, then clearly they AREN'T paying enough, as the demand out paces supply. I find the whole tone of the summary a bit misleading.
Umm there already is a pair of glasses like these commercially available, so it is not exactly vaporwear... www.myvu.com They are for sale and everything... in fact I have a pair, and they work great.