Yes, but there's a directly intuitable relationship between gravity and your car rolling.
To non-technical users, the idea that some common setting on a consumer device might work fine for months and then suddenly cause them to receive a $5,000 bill with no warning whatsoever is inconceivable. And rightly so.
Well, as an artist who also is into ropework, I can tell you that hemp is the best solution for both of my needs. It produces naturally acid-free paper that (could be) super-cheap, requires little processing and is friendly to the environment. It also produces the best quality rope for nearly every purpose except those that demand synthetic fibers.
Unfortunately because of the cost, I wind up buying expensive acid-free paper and using mostly poly ropes.
All of these methods were available and built into the phone. The person in question apparently was either unaware of them or ignored them.
yeah, why didn't he just follow these 14 easy steps to do something he had no idea he needed to do? darn luddites.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
wouldn't YOU want to make sure any stories written
Yes, I'm sure AMD is very concerned about AMD's security and press image. But that's not a reporter's problem, and trying to make it so is what is unprofessional, disrespectful, and overreaching about what we've heard.
If I were REALLY CONCERNED about information getting out, I wouldn't share it with anyone who didn't need to know it. Certainly not with a reporter, whose very job it is to get information out.
he was allowed to collect his siphoning gear back from the evidence locker.
I should hope so. I have a siphon in with my tow straps and other gear in my Jeep. It's emergency equipment like anything else.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Sorry, still doesn't make an sense.
I'm not sure how you think that AMD requiring reporters to submit stories for approval fits into my free press. Is AMD the editor or the publisher?
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
You'll have to rewrite your question in English since I have no idea what you're trying to say. Seriously, try to diagram your first sentence and tell me if it doesn't eventually become a circle.
Shield laws don't state that reporters HAVE to protect sources, the laws state that reporters MAY protect sources if they choose to do so. The free press operates on the basis that reporters should be able to write what they feel is newsworthy, without having to ask permission from anyone but their editor or the guy who owns the printing press.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Usually there's a date on which the NDA expires and the info can be released without review
Yes, that's the point -- it's one thing to say "hey', we're going to show you some stuff so that you can do your own research and thinking and be ready to publish whatever you like on July 9th when we release the information to the public".
It's quite another to say "We're going to give you a tour, and by taking the tour you agree to let us review and edit every article you write for the next 5 years that might in some way contain information we could possibly construe as confidential".
The first is essentially a professional courtesy that is advantageous to both sides as well as customers. The latter is just a ridiculous overreach that any journalist (which of course excludes most trade rag writers) would laugh at and reject out of hand.
Re:another example
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
went home without any story at all.
???? He seems to be the only one who got an interesting story at all. Everyone else just printed a bunch of press releases from AMD. Of the hundred (totally guessing) reporters at this event, he's the only one who will stand out in an editor's mind when it comes time to hire someone.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 1
They are bringing these guys into a private building where trade secrets are in use and don't want it all published in some article or blog.
It's AMD's responsibility to keep trade secrets secret. If they don't want a trade secret or confidential material to be reported, don't show it to a bunch of reporters.
Asking reporters to sign NDAs that require ANY "approval" of what is to be published is completely contrary to the entire basis under which the free press operates.
Re:If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
on
AMD NDA Scandal
·
· Score: 3, Informative
If the journalist was stupid enough to sign it.
I know lots of folks don't read the stories, but you could at least try to make it NINE WORDS into the summary before responding! The FIRST SENTENCE of the post was not exactly an SAT-level reading comprehension test.
I don't really get the fuss about solid state. There are the constant claims that a spinning platter in your computer is inherently dangerous, but honestly, I have NEVER had a problem with my iPod, nor any of my laptop's drives. The battery consumption is certainly nice though.
The fuss is about speed and battery life. i don't know where you got the idea anyone was concerned about "dangerous" hard drives in 2007 -- unless you're using your laptop on a pogo stick, the built-in shock protection locking features should be fine.
whoops, I totally spaced when doing that math. 1% of a trillion is not a billion, it's ten billion. Health insurers eat up 250+ billion dollars a year, or twice as much as we're now spending annually on military operations in Iraq.
Please show me any any such comparisons. I would be very interested in a formal study comparing private/government efficiency. All anecdotal evidence I've heard, and my personal experience, is that government tends to be much less efficient than private industry.
There are about a hundred different university, government, and think tank studies easily available with Google that show Medicare's administrative costs are in the 3%-6% range, while private insurers are more like 15-30%+ (all depending on whose numbers and the necessary "guesstimates" to compile such a single number you believe). That means that for every trillion dollars we spend on private health insurance each year, 25+ billion dollars is being spent on the insurance company itself, unnecessarily. To put that in perspective, you could build a dozen new space shuttles every single year with the money that people pay for medical insurance that doesn't go to anything remotely medical.
Economies of scale are not crazy new economic concepts, nor is uniformity in billing, paperwork, etc. Having hundreds of insurance companies all with completely different systems, all with completely different purchase agreements, and all with the shareholder's requirement to avoiding spending any money on actual health care they can possibly avoid spending, is not a recipe for efficiency.
they, like casinos, don't need to cheat to make money.
It took a LOOOONG time for casinos to learn that there was more money to be made over the long term from unquestionable integrity than there was from rigging games. I don't believe the rebate industry has learned this yet, because it's too tempting to just sit on a few percent more of the rebates and add them to profit. If someone calls to complain, process theirs, but most people will never call.
Contrary to what you may believe, religious organizations that participate in political advocacy are indeed taxed.
Contrary to what you may believe, they can do a HELL of a lot of blatant campaigning before anyone even thinks of possibly considering the chance that maybe in a few years they should lose some fraction temporarily of their tax-exempt status.
it doesn't matter, because the finding that they are a legal monopoly is a finding of fact, not of criminal or civil guilt. The fact that they are legally a monopoly is what makes them different from other companies, not the finding that they were guilty or in violation of the particular accusations in that suit.
You didn't answer my question of HOW DO YOU KNOW WHICH WAS FIRST?
I'm sorry I can't specifically answer your specialist question, I was merely confirming that the poster was right, and that in the course of my university studies I was made aware of this research.
I'm confident that professional linguistic anthropologists are aware that languages share common roots. They quite depend on it, actually, as the change and drift of languages over time from a common root is one of the ways they study how language evolves, and by examining the commonalities and fundamental words, they can determine which words are oldest (and therefore more frequently shared). Yes, you can easily think of a hundred ways those assumptions could be wrong, and each of those ways has probably been examined as somebody's PhD thesis.
refusal to take a breathalizer is considered and admission of guilt.
Only an admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. Which is not to say refusing a test has no consequences -- most states have penalties if you refuse the test, and those are separate from the DUI charges you can still get. Here in TX, it's an automatic 6-month license suspension if you refuse a test, and if they arrest you for DUI/DWI based on the officer's eyewitness evidence, they will then go and get a warrant and do a blood test to get an objective measure. But the license suspension for declining the test is a purely civil penalty -- part of the driver's licensing laws. It isn't a criminal conviction, it isn't an admission of guilt, it isn't anything but a civil violation and an inconvenience. It's a lot easier to live with than an inaccurately high roadside test will be -- that will affect you for the rest of your life.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but there's a directly intuitable relationship between gravity and your car rolling.
To non-technical users, the idea that some common setting on a consumer device might work fine for months and then suddenly cause them to receive a $5,000 bill with no warning whatsoever is inconceivable. And rightly so.
I'm sure you would, and I would too. We're nerds who read slashdot, not normal people.
Well, as an artist who also is into ropework, I can tell you that hemp is the best solution for both of my needs. It produces naturally acid-free paper that (could be) super-cheap, requires little processing and is friendly to the environment. It also produces the best quality rope for nearly every purpose except those that demand synthetic fibers.
Unfortunately because of the cost, I wind up buying expensive acid-free paper and using mostly poly ropes.
The same people who can put you in jail, yes. So it's a good idea to listen to them.
yeah, why didn't he just follow these 14 easy steps to do something he had no idea he needed to do? darn luddites.
Yes, I'm sure AMD is very concerned about AMD's security and press image. But that's not a reporter's problem, and trying to make it so is what is unprofessional, disrespectful, and overreaching about what we've heard.
If I were REALLY CONCERNED about information getting out, I wouldn't share it with anyone who didn't need to know it. Certainly not with a reporter, whose very job it is to get information out.
He's on the front page of one of the biggest web sites in the tech world. Where are the stories from the other "reporters"?
this falls in the "any publicity is good publicity" category.
I should hope so. I have a siphon in with my tow straps and other gear in my Jeep. It's emergency equipment like anything else.
Sorry, still doesn't make an sense.
I'm not sure how you think that AMD requiring reporters to submit stories for approval fits into my free press. Is AMD the editor or the publisher?
You'll have to rewrite your question in English since I have no idea what you're trying to say. Seriously, try to diagram your first sentence and tell me if it doesn't eventually become a circle.
Shield laws don't state that reporters HAVE to protect sources, the laws state that reporters MAY protect sources if they choose to do so. The free press operates on the basis that reporters should be able to write what they feel is newsworthy, without having to ask permission from anyone but their editor or the guy who owns the printing press.
Yes, that's the point -- it's one thing to say "hey', we're going to show you some stuff so that you can do your own research and thinking and be ready to publish whatever you like on July 9th when we release the information to the public".
It's quite another to say "We're going to give you a tour, and by taking the tour you agree to let us review and edit every article you write for the next 5 years that might in some way contain information we could possibly construe as confidential".
The first is essentially a professional courtesy that is advantageous to both sides as well as customers. The latter is just a ridiculous overreach that any journalist (which of course excludes most trade rag writers) would laugh at and reject out of hand.
???? He seems to be the only one who got an interesting story at all. Everyone else just printed a bunch of press releases from AMD. Of the hundred (totally guessing) reporters at this event, he's the only one who will stand out in an editor's mind when it comes time to hire someone.
It's AMD's responsibility to keep trade secrets secret. If they don't want a trade secret or confidential material to be reported, don't show it to a bunch of reporters.
Asking reporters to sign NDAs that require ANY "approval" of what is to be published is completely contrary to the entire basis under which the free press operates.
I know lots of folks don't read the stories, but you could at least try to make it NINE WORDS into the summary before responding! The FIRST SENTENCE of the post was not exactly an SAT-level reading comprehension test.
The fuss is about speed and battery life. i don't know where you got the idea anyone was concerned about "dangerous" hard drives in 2007 -- unless you're using your laptop on a pogo stick, the built-in shock protection locking features should be fine.
whoops, I totally spaced when doing that math. 1% of a trillion is not a billion, it's ten billion. Health insurers eat up 250+ billion dollars a year, or twice as much as we're now spending annually on military operations in Iraq.
There are about a hundred different university, government, and think tank studies easily available with Google that show Medicare's administrative costs are in the 3%-6% range, while private insurers are more like 15-30%+ (all depending on whose numbers and the necessary "guesstimates" to compile such a single number you believe). That means that for every trillion dollars we spend on private health insurance each year, 25+ billion dollars is being spent on the insurance company itself, unnecessarily. To put that in perspective, you could build a dozen new space shuttles every single year with the money that people pay for medical insurance that doesn't go to anything remotely medical.
Economies of scale are not crazy new economic concepts, nor is uniformity in billing, paperwork, etc. Having hundreds of insurance companies all with completely different systems, all with completely different purchase agreements, and all with the shareholder's requirement to avoiding spending any money on actual health care they can possibly avoid spending, is not a recipe for efficiency.
It took a LOOOONG time for casinos to learn that there was more money to be made over the long term from unquestionable integrity than there was from rigging games. I don't believe the rebate industry has learned this yet, because it's too tempting to just sit on a few percent more of the rebates and add them to profit. If someone calls to complain, process theirs, but most people will never call.
That's also what class action lawsuits are for.
Contrary to what you may believe, they can do a HELL of a lot of blatant campaigning before anyone even thinks of possibly considering the chance that maybe in a few years they should lose some fraction temporarily of their tax-exempt status.
it doesn't matter, because the finding that they are a legal monopoly is a finding of fact, not of criminal or civil guilt. The fact that they are legally a monopoly is what makes them different from other companies, not the finding that they were guilty or in violation of the particular accusations in that suit.
I'm sorry I can't specifically answer your specialist question, I was merely confirming that the poster was right, and that in the course of my university studies I was made aware of this research.
I'm confident that professional linguistic anthropologists are aware that languages share common roots. They quite depend on it, actually, as the change and drift of languages over time from a common root is one of the ways they study how language evolves, and by examining the commonalities and fundamental words, they can determine which words are oldest (and therefore more frequently shared). Yes, you can easily think of a hundred ways those assumptions could be wrong, and each of those ways has probably been examined as somebody's PhD thesis.
Oh wow that's the first laugh-out-loud moment I've had on slashdot in months, thanks.
Only an admission of guilt is an admission of guilt. Which is not to say refusing a test has no consequences -- most states have penalties if you refuse the test, and those are separate from the DUI charges you can still get. Here in TX, it's an automatic 6-month license suspension if you refuse a test, and if they arrest you for DUI/DWI based on the officer's eyewitness evidence, they will then go and get a warrant and do a blood test to get an objective measure. But the license suspension for declining the test is a purely civil penalty -- part of the driver's licensing laws. It isn't a criminal conviction, it isn't an admission of guilt, it isn't anything but a civil violation and an inconvenience. It's a lot easier to live with than an inaccurately high roadside test will be -- that will affect you for the rest of your life.