It doesn't matter what search engines do. The owner of the site is perfectly within his rights to say 'these accesses are allowed, these are not'.
Being indexed by a search engine is probably beneficial to LinkedIn. Both parties gain from being indexed, it is a symbiotic relationship.
HiQ is probably not beneficial. By ratting out LinkedIn's user to their employers they are potentially decreasing the number of people who will use LinkedIn. That is a parasitic relationship.
Many stores have doors that you can open by pushing a button. Assuming the door opens, one must presume that is because the management (and, by proxy, the owner) of the store has set it up for that purpose. So what we have here is effectively..
Store: You have been banned from this store. Do not come back You: Push the button Store: Door opens, you go in Store: We told you to stay out, we're having you arrested for trespassing
This, of course, happens all the time (except for the idiotic assertion that the door opener somehow granted you permission to enter).
In both cases, the DEFAULT position is that you have access. You may request information, you may enter the store. However, once you have been TOLD you do not have permission, then you DO NOT have permission. At that point it is YOUR responsibility to not access what you have been explicitly told you may not access. If you ignore that, you may find the applicable laws (trespassing, CFAA) used against you. And you will lose, because you have no defense. 'But they let me...' is not a winning defense, ever.
Huh? Cable companies started in densely populated rural areas. One of the first places to have cable was Mahanoy City, PA. While it was indeed small (about.5 Sq mi) and rural, it had a population of about 11000. That is the ideal situation for a small company to come in and wire. The place referenced in TFA has an area 6000 times as large, but only 1/3 the population. No small company is going to be able to afford to wire that.
You're missing the point. Emergency services is not an unlimited resource. If a crew is out on a wild goose chase they are unavailable for a real emergency. No matter how many crews you have, there is always the possibility that one more will be required than is available. Do you want it to be your life that's lost because the crews were busy on a false alarm?
So the question is: would more lives be saved by filtering out false alarms (even if there are some false positives) than would be saved by not filtering out false alarms?
On many (most?) airlines you can get 'extra leg room' for about a 20% upcharge. If the rows have 2 sets of 3 seats, you could make an 'extra legroom section' by removing 1 row out of a group of 6 rows. You lost 6 seats, so the remaining 30 people in that group would have to make up the difference (20% more each).
However, if you are talking about width, it gets much more expensive. Take that same 3X3 configuration and make it 2x2. Now the remaining 4 people have to make up for the loss of 2 seats, a 50% increase.
So now you have more leg room, and more width, and that costs 70% more just to make up for the lost seats. So the airlines (rightly, I think) figure if you are willing to pay 70% more to get more room, you would pay even more for more room AND more service. And now you have business class.
How do you propose they give you more room without giving up seats? Or do you expect them to give up the seats AND the revenue they would generate?
There is a third option, which what was actually done. The conditions under which the tests are done (with a sensor) are known. They programmed the ECU so it would detect those conditions and modify the engine performance to pass the test.
Lighten up, Frances. This wasn't a 'news' article, it was a blg post. Apparently the writer found these videos interesting, so he decided to make a post about it. And apparently he presumed that if you are reading his blog you have similar interests, and would also find these videos interesting. And there are a lot of them, so you could spend your day looking at them.
If the NDA is used by anyone at least half competent, you won't find out what you are agreeing to not disclose until AFTER you have signed the agreement.
I agree with you that companies are going to have to make the change. The disagreement seems to be over which companies.
The companies hilighted in this report, the ones that 'the finger is being pointed at', are fuel suppliers. They are not transportation companies, or auto manufacturers, or even electricity generators. Just fuel suppliers. Other than either stop supplying fuel, or inventing some magical fuel which works with all existing fuel burners but emits no CO2, what exactly do you expect a fuel supplier to do?
While it may make business sense for Exxon (for instance) to start developing batteries, there is nothing about their business that puts them in a better position to do so than any other company. It's not like operating off-shore oil rigs gives you some leg up on battery production.
Now, if the report was listing GM and VW and Honda and Hyundai etc as the leading contributors to pollution THEN it would make sense to point the finger at them. They ARE in a position where they can make a difference. Of course, most auto manufacturers have started moving away from fossil fuels, but that is going to take time as there are still unresolved issues over range, etc which need to be solved before everyone switches to electric.
What exactly does he have to support that position? Suppose Congress decided that all ISPs should be taxed at a 95% rate. Are you really going to claim that they would be better off (as a group) buying routers than lobbying against that?
Competition has nothing to do with this issue. This is not ISP 'A' lobbying to prevent ISP 'B' from doing something. It is the ISPs AS A GROUP who are fighting regulation of their industry. It wouldn't matter if there was one or a thousand ISPs, the industry, as a whole, would not want to be regulated and lobbying is how they make their position known.
This was $572M spent over 9 years by the industry. They hope that money will reap benefits in the future. If the INDUSTRY, as a whole, had spent that money on routers instead, exactly how much money could the industry, as a whole, expect in return?
You seem to have at least some understanding that fossil fuels are essential to our way of life.
What I am taking issue with is your idiotic assertion "it is correct to point the finger at the small number of companies who ultimately have control of the infrastructure that drives it.". What is 'driving' the use of fossil fuels is the 1 BILLION cars in the world, the ships, trains, and trucks that supply us with food and goods, mechanized farming, residential and commercial heating, etc.
You want to 'point the finger' at the companies that 'control the infrastructure', but what do you expect them to do? What magic can those companies (and only those companies) do that is going to convert all those cars to use something other than fossil fuels? Exactly what 'control' do you suppose those companies have?
People have no choices? You mean there are only gas-powered cars, and all cars have the same fuel efficiency and pollute the same?
On my daily commute I see an awful lot of cars (including mine) with only one occupant. I didn't realize it was 'big oil' that was causing that, I thought it was my choice.
I see a lot of cars and RVs on the weekends. Didn't know 'big oil' was behind the desire to get away.
I guess every one on the 943 TRILLION airline passenger miles last year was an absolutely essential trip. Or is 'big oil' behind that, too?
People have lots of choices. Some people (like you) just don't want to admit they are part of the problem when it is so much easier to blame 'big oil'.
Do you have any idea what this 'report' is about? It is not a list of 100 companies that create the most pollution. It is a list of 100 companies that SUPPLY fossil fuels.
Suppose Exxon-Mobil decided to get out of the oil business tomorrow. That would get them off this list. Yay! Of course some other company would then take that business, so there would be a different name for you to hate. Big deal.
What, exactly, would you have these companies do that would make the slightest bit of difference?
As usual, when someone brings up buggy whip manufacturers they have completely missed the point.
Almost ALL of the news provided by Google and Facebook comes from the traditional news organizations (the ones you would like to claim are obsolete). The only thing 'new' is that some very large companies (google and facebook) have inserted themselves between the news organizations and their customers, and those companies keep most of the revenue generated by the news organzations work. That is not even remotely like buggy whip manufacturers.
It is 'almost never mentioned' because it is not true. Sales tax is on the transaction, not the 'full retail price'. The only time you are paying tax on the 'full retail price' is when you get a rebate on the purchase.
Do you even know what FUD means? It means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Now, let's look at what you call 'no FUD':
'need someones permission...redmond' FEAR! Be very afraid!!! 'maybe be MAFIAA' UNCERTAINTY! They could be watching!!! 'MAYBE is your work really hard...' DOUBT! You'll never be able to run anything bu Windows!!!
Slashdot Mirror
Because there are Fortune 500 companies that use this stuff. Are we only supposed to discuss consumer stuff?
You are talking about consumer level crap, where the primary goal is cheap. This is enterprise, which has quite a good track record with tape.
Sure, they CAN do that, but they don't HAVE to do that. Once you have been told you don't have permission, you don't have permission.
It doesn't matter what search engines do. The owner of the site is perfectly within his rights to say 'these accesses are allowed, these are not'.
Being indexed by a search engine is probably beneficial to LinkedIn. Both parties gain from being indexed, it is a symbiotic relationship.
HiQ is probably not beneficial. By ratting out LinkedIn's user to their employers they are potentially decreasing the number of people who will use LinkedIn. That is a parasitic relationship.
Many stores have doors that you can open by pushing a button. Assuming the door opens, one must presume that is because the management (and, by proxy, the owner) of the store has set it up for that purpose. So what we have here is effectively..
Store: You have been banned from this store. Do not come back
You: Push the button
Store: Door opens, you go in
Store: We told you to stay out, we're having you arrested for trespassing
This, of course, happens all the time (except for the idiotic assertion that the door opener somehow granted you permission to enter).
In both cases, the DEFAULT position is that you have access. You may request information, you may enter the store. However, once you have been TOLD you do not have permission, then you DO NOT have permission. At that point it is YOUR responsibility to not access what you have been explicitly told you may not access. If you ignore that, you may find the applicable laws (trespassing, CFAA) used against you. And you will lose, because you have no defense. 'But they let me...' is not a winning defense, ever.
Huh? Cable companies started in densely populated rural areas. One of the first places to have cable was Mahanoy City, PA. While it was indeed small (about .5 Sq mi) and rural, it had a population of about 11000. That is the ideal situation for a small company to come in and wire. The place referenced in TFA has an area 6000 times as large, but only 1/3 the population. No small company is going to be able to afford to wire that.
You're missing the point. Emergency services is not an unlimited resource. If a crew is out on a wild goose chase they are unavailable for a real emergency. No matter how many crews you have, there is always the possibility that one more will be required than is available. Do you want it to be your life that's lost because the crews were busy on a false alarm?
So the question is: would more lives be saved by filtering out false alarms (even if there are some false positives) than would be saved by not filtering out false alarms?
Yep, in a 5 word headline, three of them are wrong. Not 'an end', but a lessening. Not 'phone', but VHF radio. Not 'prank', but false alarm.
It doesn't say anything about phones. It says 'mayday calls', which would probably be coming from a VHF radio.
On many (most?) airlines you can get 'extra leg room' for about a 20% upcharge. If the rows have 2 sets of 3 seats, you could make an 'extra legroom section' by removing 1 row out of a group of 6 rows. You lost 6 seats, so the remaining 30 people in that group would have to make up the difference (20% more each).
However, if you are talking about width, it gets much more expensive. Take that same 3X3 configuration and make it 2x2. Now the remaining 4 people have to make up for the loss of 2 seats, a 50% increase.
So now you have more leg room, and more width, and that costs 70% more just to make up for the lost seats. So the airlines (rightly, I think) figure if you are willing to pay 70% more to get more room, you would pay even more for more room AND more service. And now you have business class.
How do you propose they give you more room without giving up seats? Or do you expect them to give up the seats AND the revenue they would generate?
There is a third option, which what was actually done. The conditions under which the tests are done (with a sensor) are known. They programmed the ECU so it would detect those conditions and modify the engine performance to pass the test.
Nowhere in TFA does it say IBM coughed up the data. It specifically says the government did it.
Lighten up, Frances. This wasn't a 'news' article, it was a blg post. Apparently the writer found these videos interesting, so he decided to make a post about it. And apparently he presumed that if you are reading his blog you have similar interests, and would also find these videos interesting. And there are a lot of them, so you could spend your day looking at them.
ESPN hardly 'rose and fell' on stadium based sports. They rose and fell on cable subscription deals, which isn't remotely the same thing.
It is called a Non DISCLOSURE Agreement for a reason.
If the NDA is used by anyone at least half competent, you won't find out what you are agreeing to not disclose until AFTER you have signed the agreement.
I agree with you that companies are going to have to make the change. The disagreement seems to be over which companies.
The companies hilighted in this report, the ones that 'the finger is being pointed at', are fuel suppliers. They are not transportation companies, or auto manufacturers, or even electricity generators. Just fuel suppliers. Other than either stop supplying fuel, or inventing some magical fuel which works with all existing fuel burners but emits no CO2, what exactly do you expect a fuel supplier to do?
While it may make business sense for Exxon (for instance) to start developing batteries, there is nothing about their business that puts them in a better position to do so than any other company. It's not like operating off-shore oil rigs gives you some leg up on battery production.
Now, if the report was listing GM and VW and Honda and Hyundai etc as the leading contributors to pollution THEN it would make sense to point the finger at them. They ARE in a position where they can make a difference. Of course, most auto manufacturers have started moving away from fossil fuels, but that is going to take time as there are still unresolved issues over range, etc which need to be solved before everyone switches to electric.
What exactly does he have to support that position? Suppose Congress decided that all ISPs should be taxed at a 95% rate. Are you really going to claim that they would be better off (as a group) buying routers than lobbying against that?
Competition has nothing to do with this issue. This is not ISP 'A' lobbying to prevent ISP 'B' from doing something. It is the ISPs AS A GROUP who are fighting regulation of their industry. It wouldn't matter if there was one or a thousand ISPs, the industry, as a whole, would not want to be regulated and lobbying is how they make their position known.
This was $572M spent over 9 years by the industry. They hope that money will reap benefits in the future. If the INDUSTRY, as a whole, had spent that money on routers instead, exactly how much money could the industry, as a whole, expect in return?
You seem to have at least some understanding that fossil fuels are essential to our way of life.
What I am taking issue with is your idiotic assertion "it is correct to point the finger at the small number of companies who ultimately have control of the infrastructure that drives it.". What is 'driving' the use of fossil fuels is the 1 BILLION cars in the world, the ships, trains, and trucks that supply us with food and goods, mechanized farming, residential and commercial heating, etc.
You want to 'point the finger' at the companies that 'control the infrastructure', but what do you expect them to do? What magic can those companies (and only those companies) do that is going to convert all those cars to use something other than fossil fuels? Exactly what 'control' do you suppose those companies have?
He doesn't propose putting (most of) it underground. He proposes putting it on pylons along a highway.
People have no choices? You mean there are only gas-powered cars, and all cars have the same fuel efficiency and pollute the same?
On my daily commute I see an awful lot of cars (including mine) with only one occupant. I didn't realize it was 'big oil' that was causing that, I thought it was my choice.
I see a lot of cars and RVs on the weekends. Didn't know 'big oil' was behind the desire to get away.
I guess every one on the 943 TRILLION airline passenger miles last year was an absolutely essential trip. Or is 'big oil' behind that, too?
People have lots of choices. Some people (like you) just don't want to admit they are part of the problem when it is so much easier to blame 'big oil'.
Do you have any idea what this 'report' is about? It is not a list of 100 companies that create the most pollution. It is a list of 100 companies that SUPPLY fossil fuels.
Suppose Exxon-Mobil decided to get out of the oil business tomorrow. That would get them off this list. Yay! Of course some other company would then take that business, so there would be a different name for you to hate. Big deal.
What, exactly, would you have these companies do that would make the slightest bit of difference?
As usual, when someone brings up buggy whip manufacturers they have completely missed the point.
Almost ALL of the news provided by Google and Facebook comes from the traditional news organizations (the ones you would like to claim are obsolete). The only thing 'new' is that some very large companies (google and facebook) have inserted themselves between the news organizations and their customers, and those companies keep most of the revenue generated by the news organzations work. That is not even remotely like buggy whip manufacturers.
It is 'almost never mentioned' because it is not true. Sales tax is on the transaction, not the 'full retail price'. The only time you are paying tax on the 'full retail price' is when you get a rebate on the purchase.
Do you even know what FUD means? It means Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.
Now, let's look at what you call 'no FUD':
'need someones permission...redmond' FEAR! Be very afraid!!!
'maybe be MAFIAA' UNCERTAINTY! They could be watching!!!
'MAYBE is your work really hard...' DOUBT! You'll never be able to run anything bu Windows!!!
Your entire post is nothing but FUD.