... and within a day or two had old boyfriends and male acquaintances trying to get in touch with her to chat etc... it was vaguely unsettling really. I'm sure some were happily adjusted in their own lives and were just interested in catching up... but it was pretty clear some of them were looking to hook up...
I guess my point is that such contact does not create the urge to cheat. It merely facilitates an existing urge. So I'm still leaning towards facebook, like a car, just being a tool that facilitates cheating.
Suppose they prove super-symmetry and find the Higgs Boson, what are we going to be able to do with it. Other than completing the theory, is there any practical use for this new found knowledge? Genuine question, physics isn't my forté. Thanks,
A validated theory is, if nothing else, a stepping stone to an even more complete understanding. From better understanding comes new, or improved, tools. There is sometimes a time lag between discovery and practical application. Sometimes decades, sometimes a century or more. Consider nuclear fusion (what the sun is doing), potentially a safe and abundant source of power. Figuring out how to build and operate a fusion reactor will require understanding a few theories that were at one time merely theoretical with no practical application.
That little check box in the Android Applications Settings Labeled "unknown sources".
Once you allow unknown sources all bets are off. You can download an app with the standard
web browser, but you can't install it unless you uncheck that box.
So that is what makes a source trusted or untrusted.
A known source is not necessarily a trusted source regardless of what the check box is labeled. You need to read the sentences beyond the first one to understand the question, ie how trustworthy is a source that merely reacts? Less so for early adopters of an app, more so for those who those who get it later?
What makes a source trusted? Do they screen apps for inappropriate behavior before putting an app on the store (preempt) or do they just remove inappropriately behaving apps after they are discovered in the field (react)? I don't think trust is a binary state, its a range of levels. A reputable source that preempts may be more trustworthy, a reputable source that merely reacts may be less trustworthy but more convenient.
He's going to Utah. No drinking, no sex, strong religious message.
A local radio station (rock/alternative) occasionally organizes ski trips to Utah. Experience tells me you are wrong on all three counts. About the only noteworthy thing was that at a club they didn't allow any slamming in the pit in front of the band. When a couple of guys started a sheriffs' deputy walked over and told them to stop. They said OK, he thanked them and walked away.
Sure its not the debauchery of vegas but that was of OK. It was a ski trip and being completely f'd up the next day would have been counterproductive.
So if a MS employee created games for the iPhone (something MS does not do and is highly unlikely to ever do), would he be safe?
MS is a game developer/publisher so they probably have a claim on any game related ideas. The target platform is largely irrelevant.
I've seen employment agreements at a large game developer. Anything game related belongs to the company. The agreement also had a section for exclusions and I know people who listed their personal (shareware/donationware/FOSS) game projects and the corporate attorney took only seconds to sign off on the exclusions. To be fair none of these projects were competitors. In the MS case an iPhone game could be reasonably considered a WP7 game competitor so it may be fair for MS to not offer an exception. A WP7 exclusive(*) would further MS' business, something an employee could reasonably be expected to do. Again, if the employment contract and compensation is for directed labor and any ideas that further the company's business.
(*) Similar to HALO not being published on a Mac despite starting there.
had the typical arrogant engineer's attitude towards business school that you seem to display. I thoroughly enjoyed business school in part because I was so wrong and my former ignorance made me laugh.
Your school must have been an exception,...
I doubt it. A state (public) university ranked in the top 30 in the US. Student from other universities seemed to be on the same page.
In general you seem to be confusing recent grads with those running the companies. I can only tell you what recent grads may have been taught, not what those of the 1960s and 1970s were taught.
...because we can see from the way American companies are run that either most business schools are not teaching sound business principles, or their graduates are completely ignoring what they've learned there.
I suspect more of the later and its not specific to business. There is no shortage of engineers/programmers who were taught how to do things properly but go on to create crap in the real world.
Did your school teach you that it's best to run a company without thinking at all about the long term, and to rack up as much debt as possible to make the quarterly numbers look better so the executives can get a bigger bonus?
In both finance and strategy classes. In finance it was to look for such things in other companies, companies to avoid. In strategy it was to avoid such thinking.
... If they don't order it and you create it on your own time and it's different enough than what you're doing then it should be your property...
Different from your work or the company's business? Your work could be on operating systems. Your company could be in the business of providing software for personal computer users. You could have an idea for a word processor. Its not related to your work but it is related to your company's business. Your salary may be compensation for both your directed labor and any ideas on how the company may further its business.
Personally the companies I've worked for have been quite reasonable about this. Employment contracts with a section for work/projects immune from company claims. Waivers that were easy to get if the company had no interest in a new idea.
This is bad for all of us because it slows down the invention of new things to the angular flow rate of cold molasses.
Not necessarily. Sometimes an individual does not have the resources to bring the idea to market. Other times the company simply signs a waiver saying they relinquish any claim on this idea, IIRC as HP did for some of Steve Wozniak's idea. You could say Apple Computer was born from HP waivers to some degree.
... is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?
It is common that your salary is compensation for both your onsite labor and any good ideas that you may have. It is also common to give your employer a list of exceptions, say personal projects you worked on before employment began. Furthermore it is also common to get your employer to wave any claims on an idea they are not interested in. For example some of the key design ideas that led to the first Apple computer were made while employed by HP, HP waved their claims.
Now, the corporation the demands that universities be corporate training mills, rather than an institution of higher learning as universities were intended to be, so that the company doesn't have to spend time and resources on training. The most glaring example of this is the business school: corporations have pushed off their training on b-schools, with students not learning a whole hell of a lot in terms of critical thinking skills. Now they want the same b-school type of training to occur in other disciplines/majors.
Really, have you been to business school recently? I had the typical arrogant engineer's attitude towards business school that you seem to display. I thoroughly enjoyed business school in part because I was so wrong and my former ignorance made me laugh. For example a marketing class was not about using psychology to trick people. It was about using sound statistical theory to design a survey to rank needs/wants and to build a mathematical model to describe product market share. As a model it of course has its limitations but the approach in general was equivalent to what I saw i various science and engineering classes of the past. Not what I expected at all. In an economics class the externalization of costs was discussed and their impact on society and the ethics of doing so was discussed. Not what I had expected. In a strategy class sustainable resources was discussed. Not what I had expected...
Once upon a time the _company_ did the training; they hired someone that they believed had potential, knowing the new hire would --now get this, it's a radical concept-- _grow_ into the position.
To be honest, that was also in an era where there was little job hopping. Where the corporation knew there was a high probability the person would stay with the company for many years. In other words those new skills would benefit the corp doing the training rather than some other corp, possibly a competitor. Everything has a price, including job hopping. Which came first, reduced training or job hopping? I don't know but I expect they evolved together over time and both contributed to a cycle of negative feedback.
It could have resulted in Apple retaining unique hardware, rather than moving to Intel CPUs. Of course, whether that would be for the better or the worse is an open question.
Apple's move to PC hardware was key to its success. They basically doubled their market share after moving from PPC to x86. The consumer no longer had to choose Mac OS or Windows, they could have both(*). This made the decision to buy a Mac much easier for many.
(*) Yes there was emulation under PPC but it was far less practical, especially for games.
Run both Unix (or a Unix-like OS) and Windowws on the same computer?
(1) It's not on the same computer. You put a second computer in the same box via an expansion slot.
(2) Mid 90's Mac running the legacy (classic) Mac OS did the same thing, a PC on a card.
It could have resulted in Apple retaining unique hardware, rather than moving to Intel CPUs. Of course, whether that would be for the better or the worse is an open question.
Apple's move to PC hardware was key to its success. They basically doubled their market share after moving from PPC to x86. The consumer no longer had to choose Mac OS or Windows, they could have both(*). This made the decision to buy a Mac much easier for many.
(*) Yes there was emulation under PPC but it was far less practical, especially for games.
I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't limit what government can legislate, except for the pretty specific clauses ensuring specific kinds of fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, freedom from arbitrary incarceration, and several other specific limitations on the government's scope of power. In other respects, it's allowed to be a government and legislate whatever its democratically elected legislators vote to legislate.
You are very much mistaken. The US Constitution defines what the federal government *may* legislate and then specifically states that everything else is left to the states to legislate. The first ten amendments then go on to explicitly forbid legislation, federal and state, in certain areas.
You're looking at it through a tiny instant in time through a tiny pinhole and ignoring everything else trying to come up with an instance to justify your reaction to his statement, the problem is that you are completely unqualified (I say that based on the fact that you raised the question alone) to make that decision, which is why it isn't your decision and there are laws relating to it.
No. I am looking at poster #1 who offered a very specific situation. Poster #2 then offered a very general and somewhat tangential response that could be interpreted several ways due to its vagueness. I pointed this out to poster #2, offering one interpretation that he probably did not intend and suggested he elaborate to avoid this miscommunication.
Your hysteria is causing you to see things that are not there.
I'm a med student who has worked in several hospitals, and have yet to see one where HIPAA is rigorously followed. Directives by management are common, but when HIPAA impedes patient care (it's a hassle and timekiller to comply completely), it is always worked around. Doctors by and large, in my experience, toss HIPAA aside the first time they have to decide what to do with their limited time - adhere to every last rule or take care of a patient.
I work in a state governmental agency and we take it very seriously.
You do realize that some are going to interpret your response to mean that in government run health care the decision will be to give paperwork and rules a higher priority than patient care? I suspect this is not the impression you wanted to make. Perhaps you should elaborate on your response.
Pimp My Humvee was a 2004'ish *reality* show in Iraq.
"And Rocco's Humvee is, today, equipped--with "Gypsy racks"--steel-plated cages around the gunner--and other add-on, improvised hardware, known as "hillbilly armor." "It's Mel Gibson 'Road Warrior' stuff," says Capt. John Pinter, the battalion's maintenance officer. "We're not shooting for pretty over here." This is the ugly reality that National Guard Spc. Thomas Wilson was apparently trying to convey to Donald Rumsfeld in Kuwait last week... Wilson asked Rumsfeld: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?"" http://www.newsweek.com/2004/12/19/hillbilly-armor.html
And I'm sure the bank will get on that Linux version of the application right away.
Companies like Intuit seem to have no problem connecting to various major banks and performing online financial transactions. What makes you think that the banks have to write the application?
... the cost of adapting and extending it, for example in writing printer and scanner drivers...
Why are they writing their own drivers? As a sizable buyer of equipment (the government, not the single department) they could simply tell HP and other vendors that the government will only be considering equipment that has Linux drivers.
At very least you'd expect a large scale dry-run with simulated data that should bring these errors out before becoming live.
Maybe. Such testing only tests the type of errors you have thought of and are anticipating. I was once blessed with a competent and skilled QA department and months of pre-release testing, simulation, fuzzing, beta testing, and yet when a product goes live to millions bugs become apparent. You just can't think of and test for everything in a sufficiently complex system. The real failure of this LSE rollout may have been not running the old and new systems in parallel while looking for discrepancies in the publicly reported data.
Apple is one of the few tech companies that are NOT overpriced. Given their revenue and profits, the market value for Apple is just on par with any industrial company. Geeeez.
True but perception and fear can cause a bit of short term volatility.
Contrary to what the summary claims investors are not generally worried, AAPLE was down only 1.3% today. They realize that Steve has picked and trained a very strong management team, a team that proved itself during his previous absence.
Best wishes for Jobs. Hopefully he just has to slow down and relax.
Slashdot Mirror
... and within a day or two had old boyfriends and male acquaintances trying to get in touch with her to chat etc... it was vaguely unsettling really. I'm sure some were happily adjusted in their own lives and were just interested in catching up... but it was pretty clear some of them were looking to hook up ...
I guess my point is that such contact does not create the urge to cheat. It merely facilitates an existing urge. So I'm still leaning towards facebook, like a car, just being a tool that facilitates cheating.
Suppose they prove super-symmetry and find the Higgs Boson, what are we going to be able to do with it. Other than completing the theory, is there any practical use for this new found knowledge? Genuine question, physics isn't my forté. Thanks,
A validated theory is, if nothing else, a stepping stone to an even more complete understanding. From better understanding comes new, or improved, tools. There is sometimes a time lag between discovery and practical application. Sometimes decades, sometimes a century or more. Consider nuclear fusion (what the sun is doing), potentially a safe and abundant source of power. Figuring out how to build and operate a fusion reactor will require understanding a few theories that were at one time merely theoretical with no practical application.
Facebook Linked To One In Five Divorces In US
And how many are linked to cars (*), another tool used by those who have decided to be unfaithful?
:-)
Yet another time for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation.
(*) Hey, dumb stories demand a car analogy.
What makes a source trusted?
That little check box in the Android Applications Settings Labeled "unknown sources".
Once you allow unknown sources all bets are off. You can download an app with the standard web browser, but you can't install it unless you uncheck that box.
So that is what makes a source trusted or untrusted.
A known source is not necessarily a trusted source regardless of what the check box is labeled. You need to read the sentences beyond the first one to understand the question, ie how trustworthy is a source that merely reacts? Less so for early adopters of an app, more so for those who those who get it later?
You buy stuff from trusted sources.
What makes a source trusted? Do they screen apps for inappropriate behavior before putting an app on the store (preempt) or do they just remove inappropriately behaving apps after they are discovered in the field (react)? I don't think trust is a binary state, its a range of levels. A reputable source that preempts may be more trustworthy, a reputable source that merely reacts may be less trustworthy but more convenient.
He's going to Utah. No drinking, no sex, strong religious message.
A local radio station (rock/alternative) occasionally organizes ski trips to Utah. Experience tells me you are wrong on all three counts. About the only noteworthy thing was that at a club they didn't allow any slamming in the pit in front of the band. When a couple of guys started a sheriffs' deputy walked over and told them to stop. They said OK, he thanked them and walked away.
Sure its not the debauchery of vegas but that was of OK. It was a ski trip and being completely f'd up the next day would have been counterproductive.
So if a MS employee created games for the iPhone (something MS does not do and is highly unlikely to ever do), would he be safe?
MS is a game developer/publisher so they probably have a claim on any game related ideas. The target platform is largely irrelevant.
I've seen employment agreements at a large game developer. Anything game related belongs to the company. The agreement also had a section for exclusions and I know people who listed their personal (shareware/donationware/FOSS) game projects and the corporate attorney took only seconds to sign off on the exclusions. To be fair none of these projects were competitors. In the MS case an iPhone game could be reasonably considered a WP7 game competitor so it may be fair for MS to not offer an exception. A WP7 exclusive(*) would further MS' business, something an employee could reasonably be expected to do. Again, if the employment contract and compensation is for directed labor and any ideas that further the company's business.
(*) Similar to HALO not being published on a Mac despite starting there.
had the typical arrogant engineer's attitude towards business school that you seem to display. I thoroughly enjoyed business school in part because I was so wrong and my former ignorance made me laugh.
Your school must have been an exception, ...
I doubt it. A state (public) university ranked in the top 30 in the US. Student from other universities seemed to be on the same page.
In general you seem to be confusing recent grads with those running the companies. I can only tell you what recent grads may have been taught, not what those of the 1960s and 1970s were taught.
I suspect more of the later and its not specific to business. There is no shortage of engineers/programmers who were taught how to do things properly but go on to create crap in the real world.
Did your school teach you that it's best to run a company without thinking at all about the long term, and to rack up as much debt as possible to make the quarterly numbers look better so the executives can get a bigger bonus?
In both finance and strategy classes. In finance it was to look for such things in other companies, companies to avoid. In strategy it was to avoid such thinking.
... If they don't order it and you create it on your own time and it's different enough than what you're doing then it should be your property ...
Different from your work or the company's business? Your work could be on operating systems. Your company could be in the business of providing software for personal computer users. You could have an idea for a word processor. Its not related to your work but it is related to your company's business. Your salary may be compensation for both your directed labor and any ideas on how the company may further its business.
Personally the companies I've worked for have been quite reasonable about this. Employment contracts with a section for work/projects immune from company claims. Waivers that were easy to get if the company had no interest in a new idea.
This is bad for all of us because it slows down the invention of new things to the angular flow rate of cold molasses.
Not necessarily. Sometimes an individual does not have the resources to bring the idea to market. Other times the company simply signs a waiver saying they relinquish any claim on this idea, IIRC as HP did for some of Steve Wozniak's idea. You could say Apple Computer was born from HP waivers to some degree.
... is it common (in the states) to "own" your employees even when they are not at work?
It is common that your salary is compensation for both your onsite labor and any good ideas that you may have. It is also common to give your employer a list of exceptions, say personal projects you worked on before employment began. Furthermore it is also common to get your employer to wave any claims on an idea they are not interested in. For example some of the key design ideas that led to the first Apple computer were made while employed by HP, HP waved their claims.
Now, the corporation the demands that universities be corporate training mills, rather than an institution of higher learning as universities were intended to be, so that the company doesn't have to spend time and resources on training. The most glaring example of this is the business school: corporations have pushed off their training on b-schools, with students not learning a whole hell of a lot in terms of critical thinking skills. Now they want the same b-school type of training to occur in other disciplines/majors.
Really, have you been to business school recently? I had the typical arrogant engineer's attitude towards business school that you seem to display. I thoroughly enjoyed business school in part because I was so wrong and my former ignorance made me laugh. For example a marketing class was not about using psychology to trick people. It was about using sound statistical theory to design a survey to rank needs/wants and to build a mathematical model to describe product market share. As a model it of course has its limitations but the approach in general was equivalent to what I saw i various science and engineering classes of the past. Not what I expected at all. In an economics class the externalization of costs was discussed and their impact on society and the ethics of doing so was discussed. Not what I had expected. In a strategy class sustainable resources was discussed. Not what I had expected ...
Once upon a time the _company_ did the training; they hired someone that they believed had potential, knowing the new hire would --now get this, it's a radical concept-- _grow_ into the position.
To be honest, that was also in an era where there was little job hopping. Where the corporation knew there was a high probability the person would stay with the company for many years. In other words those new skills would benefit the corp doing the training rather than some other corp, possibly a competitor. Everything has a price, including job hopping. Which came first, reduced training or job hopping? I don't know but I expect they evolved together over time and both contributed to a cycle of negative feedback.
... old hardware, which is also more likely to be running old versions of OS X ...
I am not sure. I suspect Mac users are far more likely to upgrade than PC users. Mac OS X is only US$30.
The most important question: Can you get one in black? Aluminum is getting a bit tired. :-)
It could have resulted in Apple retaining unique hardware, rather than moving to Intel CPUs. Of course, whether that would be for the better or the worse is an open question.
Apple's move to PC hardware was key to its success. They basically doubled their market share after moving from PPC to x86. The consumer no longer had to choose Mac OS or Windows, they could have both(*). This made the decision to buy a Mac much easier for many.
(*) Yes there was emulation under PPC but it was far less practical, especially for games.
Run both Unix (or a Unix-like OS) and Windowws on the same computer?
Welcome to Sun in the 1990s.
(1) It's not on the same computer. You put a second computer in the same box via an expansion slot.
(2) Mid 90's Mac running the legacy (classic) Mac OS did the same thing, a PC on a card.
It could have resulted in Apple retaining unique hardware, rather than moving to Intel CPUs. Of course, whether that would be for the better or the worse is an open question.
Apple's move to PC hardware was key to its success. They basically doubled their market share after moving from PPC to x86. The consumer no longer had to choose Mac OS or Windows, they could have both(*). This made the decision to buy a Mac much easier for many.
(*) Yes there was emulation under PPC but it was far less practical, especially for games.
I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't limit what government can legislate, except for the pretty specific clauses ensuring specific kinds of fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, freedom from arbitrary incarceration, and several other specific limitations on the government's scope of power. In other respects, it's allowed to be a government and legislate whatever its democratically elected legislators vote to legislate.
You are very much mistaken. The US Constitution defines what the federal government *may* legislate and then specifically states that everything else is left to the states to legislate. The first ten amendments then go on to explicitly forbid legislation, federal and state, in certain areas.
You're looking at it through a tiny instant in time through a tiny pinhole and ignoring everything else trying to come up with an instance to justify your reaction to his statement, the problem is that you are completely unqualified (I say that based on the fact that you raised the question alone) to make that decision, which is why it isn't your decision and there are laws relating to it.
No. I am looking at poster #1 who offered a very specific situation. Poster #2 then offered a very general and somewhat tangential response that could be interpreted several ways due to its vagueness. I pointed this out to poster #2, offering one interpretation that he probably did not intend and suggested he elaborate to avoid this miscommunication.
Your hysteria is causing you to see things that are not there.
I'm a med student who has worked in several hospitals, and have yet to see one where HIPAA is rigorously followed. Directives by management are common, but when HIPAA impedes patient care (it's a hassle and timekiller to comply completely), it is always worked around. Doctors by and large, in my experience, toss HIPAA aside the first time they have to decide what to do with their limited time - adhere to every last rule or take care of a patient.
I work in a state governmental agency and we take it very seriously.
You do realize that some are going to interpret your response to mean that in government run health care the decision will be to give paperwork and rules a higher priority than patient care? I suspect this is not the impression you wanted to make. Perhaps you should elaborate on your response.
... Pimp My Humvee.
Pimp My Humvee was a 2004'ish *reality* show in Iraq.
... Wilson asked Rumsfeld: "Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?""
"And Rocco's Humvee is, today, equipped--with "Gypsy racks"--steel-plated cages around the gunner--and other add-on, improvised hardware, known as "hillbilly armor." "It's Mel Gibson 'Road Warrior' stuff," says Capt. John Pinter, the battalion's maintenance officer. "We're not shooting for pretty over here." This is the ugly reality that National Guard Spc. Thomas Wilson was apparently trying to convey to Donald Rumsfeld in Kuwait last week
http://www.newsweek.com/2004/12/19/hillbilly-armor.html
And I'm sure the bank will get on that Linux version of the application right away.
Companies like Intuit seem to have no problem connecting to various major banks and performing online financial transactions. What makes you think that the banks have to write the application?
... the cost of adapting and extending it, for example in writing printer and scanner drivers ...
Why are they writing their own drivers? As a sizable buyer of equipment (the government, not the single department) they could simply tell HP and other vendors that the government will only be considering equipment that has Linux drivers.
At very least you'd expect a large scale dry-run with simulated data that should bring these errors out before becoming live.
Maybe. Such testing only tests the type of errors you have thought of and are anticipating. I was once blessed with a competent and skilled QA department and months of pre-release testing, simulation, fuzzing, beta testing, and yet when a product goes live to millions bugs become apparent. You just can't think of and test for everything in a sufficiently complex system. The real failure of this LSE rollout may have been not running the old and new systems in parallel while looking for discrepancies in the publicly reported data.
Apple is one of the few tech companies that are NOT overpriced. Given their revenue and profits, the market value for Apple is just on par with any industrial company. Geeeez.
True but perception and fear can cause a bit of short term volatility.
Contrary to what the summary claims investors are not generally worried, AAPLE was down only 1.3% today. They realize that Steve has picked and trained a very strong management team, a team that proved itself during his previous absence.
Best wishes for Jobs. Hopefully he just has to slow down and relax.