You also can't reasonably spy on Apple without analytics. This is Apple's primary motivation, IMO. $60M or $600M (in 2013), they can leave on the table.
Any real journalist knows their defining characteristic is integrity. Everybody just wants to overlook that when it comes to Gizmodo though. Integrity means you don't go to a trade show and disrupt the demonstrations of companies that paid lots of money to be there. Integrity means you don't even offer, let alone actually pay for a stolen device. Failing that, integrity means you simply give the device back when asked for it, you don't try to use it as a bargaining chip. Integrity means you don't harm members of the public for no good reason.
Now, let's get into common sense. If journalists are to be the protectors and the propagators of truth, discernment and common sense are two of their most valuable tools. Common sense tells you that you don't attempt to acquire trade secrets of a company that has less than three months ago sent you a letter to cease and desist attempts to acquire said trade secrets. Common sense tells you that if you want greater access to a company, and someone offers to sell you something valuable belonging to said company, you buy it, then return it to said company without making a story about it. Common sense tells you if you do purchase a device that is likely to be stolen in California, pay no more than $799 for it, thereby avoiding any implicit acknowledgement that the device is worth enough to you, to constitute grand theft in the eyes of the law.
So who thinks these guys are journalists? People who don't care about what a journalist is supposed to be.
Uh yeah, journalists are supposed to find facts and write about them. Not go to a venue to disrupt it. I think these guys are going to have a hard time proving they are journalists.
Obviously, your definition of legit differs from mine. My definition excludes those who pay others to steal, misappropriate trade secrets and remove vowels from any comment on gizmodo that is critical of gizmodo.
Imagine the retarded parents and doctors, who will trust this test more, than they trust the actual facts. (If a doc says it, is must be true, right?
I smell a lot of false positives and negatives.
You are aware that the only diagnostic method for "autism" at this time is casual observation of a failure to develop or loss of language and/or social skills, aren't you? I fail to see where there are any "facts", other than these observed symptoms, that are present using our current diagnostic methods.
If you are interested in the truth, the retraction statement from The Lancet characterized that study as incomplete, not completely wrong, and said that further inquiry in this area is needed.
Well, maybe. But there is one snag. The only diagnostic we have available at this time for autism is casual observation. There is really no science behind a diagnosis of autism.
Re:No link between gut bacteria and autism
on
Urine Test For Autism
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Killed people? Cite your source.
My nephew was cured after being diagnosed with autism....how, you may ask? By licensed doctors who applied legitimate biomedical treatment to deal with abnormal and anomalous readings found in blood and stool samples. It is really surprising to me that all you pro-pharma fools are so brainwashed, that in unison, you will call actual medical science (the process of identifying abnormal conditions in blood and stool and treating them) a fraud, yet you will call the doctor who renders a diagnosis of "autism" and recommend long term care as the only solution, using only casual observation as their diagnostic method, a "scientist".
I don't sympathize at all. I'm not an iPhone/iPad developer, and even I know that an app that duplicates or serves to substitute core functionality of the device will get booted.
Slashdot Mirror
Ask a sensible question, get modded as troll.
"Critical for Ads" my ass. Advertisers have worked almost exclusively without analytics until about a decade ago.
No, just a call that completely ignores the facts.
You also can't reasonably spy on Apple without analytics. This is Apple's primary motivation, IMO. $60M or $600M (in 2013), they can leave on the table.
Are you suggesting that Eric Schmidt wasn't sniffing around outside the board room when they recused him from the discussion?
For the multi-master replication that was promised for 8.4.
It's a real database with ACID compliance designed in from the start, not as an afterthought.
How can one with no integrity value the truth?
Any real journalist knows their defining characteristic is integrity. Everybody just wants to overlook that when it comes to Gizmodo though. Integrity means you don't go to a trade show and disrupt the demonstrations of companies that paid lots of money to be there. Integrity means you don't even offer, let alone actually pay for a stolen device. Failing that, integrity means you simply give the device back when asked for it, you don't try to use it as a bargaining chip. Integrity means you don't harm members of the public for no good reason.
Now, let's get into common sense. If journalists are to be the protectors and the propagators of truth, discernment and common sense are two of their most valuable tools. Common sense tells you that you don't attempt to acquire trade secrets of a company that has less than three months ago sent you a letter to cease and desist attempts to acquire said trade secrets. Common sense tells you that if you want greater access to a company, and someone offers to sell you something valuable belonging to said company, you buy it, then return it to said company without making a story about it. Common sense tells you if you do purchase a device that is likely to be stolen in California, pay no more than $799 for it, thereby avoiding any implicit acknowledgement that the device is worth enough to you, to constitute grand theft in the eyes of the law.
So who thinks these guys are journalists? People who don't care about what a journalist is supposed to be.
We're hoping if we feed this enough, gizmodo will actually eat itself.
Uh yeah, journalists are supposed to find facts and write about them. Not go to a venue to disrupt it. I think these guys are going to have a hard time proving they are journalists.
Obviously, your definition of legit differs from mine. My definition excludes those who pay others to steal, misappropriate trade secrets and remove vowels from any comment on gizmodo that is critical of gizmodo.
Imagine the retarded parents and doctors, who will trust this test more, than they trust the actual facts. (If a doc says it, is must be true, right?
I smell a lot of false positives and negatives.
You are aware that the only diagnostic method for "autism" at this time is casual observation of a failure to develop or loss of language and/or social skills, aren't you? I fail to see where there are any "facts", other than these observed symptoms, that are present using our current diagnostic methods.
If you are interested in the truth, the retraction statement from The Lancet characterized that study as incomplete, not completely wrong, and said that further inquiry in this area is needed.
Well, maybe. But there is one snag. The only diagnostic we have available at this time for autism is casual observation. There is really no science behind a diagnosis of autism.
Killed people? Cite your source.
My nephew was cured after being diagnosed with autism....how, you may ask? By licensed doctors who applied legitimate biomedical treatment to deal with abnormal and anomalous readings found in blood and stool samples. It is really surprising to me that all you pro-pharma fools are so brainwashed, that in unison, you will call actual medical science (the process of identifying abnormal conditions in blood and stool and treating them) a fraud, yet you will call the doctor who renders a diagnosis of "autism" and recommend long term care as the only solution, using only casual observation as their diagnostic method, a "scientist".
We all know about correlation and causation!
Apparently not. All discoveries of causation are prompted by some kind of correlation.
No, compared to search engine-compatible HTML.
Great viral marketing, imo
I don't sympathize at all. I'm not an iPhone/iPad developer, and even I know that an app that duplicates or serves to substitute core functionality of the device will get booted.
Except this video (according to the title of the page) is about EEPROM longevity. Flash != EEPROM
Too late, Michael Dell.
Apple will pull the app from the store LONG before they allow actual open software to slip through their stranglehold on content.
Oh bullshit. This can be easily solved with a link in the program. I don't know what all the fucking ceremony is about.
It's an inquiry, NOT an investigation. An inquiry may or may not lead to an investigation.
This is probably more like it:
if(top.location != self.location)
{
window.onbeforeunload = function () {};
window.__defineSetter__('location', function(val) { window.location = val });
top.location = self.location;
}