Fitness trackers offer no weight-loss benefit and can make users fatter - study from University of Pittsburgh published in JAMA.
Why would they offer weight-loss benefits? They are fitness trackers, not weight loss products. The choice to lose weight is entirely up to you. You can do that with tools that make it efficient or you can do it other ways.
If you thought their purpose was weight-loss benefits then you don't need to quote some University study, just a simple dictionary will do.
Or maybe the equivalent of a billion dollar ad campaign against Intel.
How so? I see this as a billion dollar advertising campaign FOR Intel. Like it or not we live in a world where the most successful companies are ones where people voluntarily give up their personal information, their personal rights, or (in the case of Amazon) even access to their homes. Why would anyone consider "Intel has {blah blah copyright} over {blah blah feature I don't understand}" negative?
Intel's major customers don't care, but they are seeing the name a lot. Some of them will even see this as Intel having something that someone else doesn't so it must be good.
I generally favour not reducing a oligopoly to a monopoly. Corporate death penalties are usually worse on the market, consumers, workers, and people who own any kind of investments including retirement savings than they are on any of the people involved in the decisions for which you are demanding justice.
To be clear, you wouldn't be opposed to the Government shutting down one of the two remaining PC chip manufacturers and granting a monopoly to the manufacturer who produces core computer parts all over the world?
John Oliver literally has made incredibly vocal and public attacks against all those groups. He is literally the exact opposite of what you just described.
No one has ever accused the American government of not having enough money to pay for healthcare. The American government hasn't allocated enough money to pay for healthcare.
That's a very VERY big difference and the amount they allocate has nothing to do with how much this comical protest will cost the government.
well, there is no documentation whatsoever abut the ME.
You've never been to Intel's website have you? There is a fuckton of documentation on the ME. There is with pretty much everything that gets used for corporate resource management and that is one of the primary selling points of ME.
Wait until you find out that engines need maintenance. Then I'm sure you'll campaign for the complete cessation of movement of people and cargo because it would never work right?
Leave-with-a-neighbor doesn't work either. I had my items delivered to an elderly lady who then guessed who the items were for and gave them to another neighbor who then went on holiday for two weeks.
That sounds like a very VERY specific failure mechanism for leave-with-a-neighbour. In general this system actually works very well nearly all the time.
Now we are teaching children to accept being dependent on a single point of tech failure.
Haven't we always? Given the way people use their own personal devices I will happily recommend cloud based solutions to a lot of people. That "someone else" who runs "someone else's computer" is much better at it than the general population.
Good old pen and paper is still better, your brain retains the info better too.
At what? The latter part of your sentence seems to imply that they are reading from them, that's about one of the few things that Chrome books don't get used for in my wife's school. Now are pen and paper better at taking automated online tests? Sending emails? Editing documents? Visualizing complex math formulas? Displaying 3D models of the body?
Sounds quite like you're making a lot of very critical assumptions to bolster your argument.
a) They aren't cheap. b) Google doesn't resell user data from people who's accounts are tied to Google Edu for legal reasons c) "users" are actually users, there's no need for quotes. d) These aren't PCs, they are specific devices designed to run specific software for specific purposes replacing locked down iPads e) You don't expect your cloud vendor to knock you offline, especially someone with the size, and presumed professionalism of Google. What you normally expect is better, more stable and more reliable service than what can be provided by a lowest bidder IT service.
If you had asserted that most people don't hurt other people against their will I would have agreed with you, but "perverted crimes" is basically an undefined term.
So you completely agree with my post and the fundamental discussion I was replying to but you typed all that because you're hung up on a definition? Are you in Human Resources by any chance?
So back to my point: you estimate, you guess, what money you part with is not the advertised price. It is just a slowly boiled frog (not that slowly boiling frogs actually boil themselves, that's a myth), but it's setting an expectation of a final price not being what was advertised.
In many countries that just doesn't happen. The numbers on the advert, the numbers on label, the number at the front of the contract is it in full. "hidden" costs don't exist unless they are in the form of something that is compared to something else (e.g. the exchange rate a bank offers is a hidden cost when compared against the real exchange rate, but whatever the bank gives you, that's what you part with, nothing more).
If you have no previous direct connection with an advertised number and the money leaving your account you're likely to be far more accepting of hidden fees that make this situation worse.
People can (and do) deploy hidden cameras in conjunction with home security systems, for the purpose of identifying burglars or home invaders.
That should be easy to prove, show me all the other hidden cameras in all the other rooms. Or are you only worried about someone stealing the bed and the shower curtain?
Yes it will. If the guy with the 7500 bitcoins hadn't lost his harddisk, he probably would have sold them at some point, increasing the circulation.
The value of currency is based on supply and demand, not movement. No one is sitting around staring at people wallet checking for their movement. All they know is the total in circulation.
This is why a non-'anonymous' centralized system is desirable.
Nope. The forgotten passwords are a Good Thing, because each lost btc means mine are worth more.
Nope right back at you. The problem with the BTC public ledger is there's no way to identify currency out of circulation. The value of your bitcoin won't ever change without a system to clearly mark stranded coins. The system says there are X bitcoins on the market and supply and demand will play a role with that assumption of X.
No they wouldn't, listening to something is irrelevant without the context.
e.g. I'm listening to CCR right now. That helps the RIAA with precisely didley squat. They don't know if I'm pirating it, if it's being played in a nightclub without performance rights, if I'm listening to it on a CD, or if it's just random internet station of the day.
The amount of effort to correlate when and where something was played to determine if it is legal or not would borderline bankrupt them.
Memory is not there to "be used" it is there to speed up the system. Using memory inefficiently defeats that purpose. That's not to say security isn't a valid purpose, it most certainly is. Just be careful with the blanket statements.
Slashdot Mirror
Fitness trackers offer no weight-loss benefit and can make users fatter - study from University of Pittsburgh published in JAMA.
Why would they offer weight-loss benefits? They are fitness trackers, not weight loss products. The choice to lose weight is entirely up to you. You can do that with tools that make it efficient or you can do it other ways.
If you thought their purpose was weight-loss benefits then you don't need to quote some University study, just a simple dictionary will do.
Or maybe the equivalent of a billion dollar ad campaign against Intel.
How so? I see this as a billion dollar advertising campaign FOR Intel. Like it or not we live in a world where the most successful companies are ones where people voluntarily give up their personal information, their personal rights, or (in the case of Amazon) even access to their homes. Why would anyone consider "Intel has {blah blah copyright} over {blah blah feature I don't understand}" negative?
Intel's major customers don't care, but they are seeing the name a lot. Some of them will even see this as Intel having something that someone else doesn't so it must be good.
I generally favour not reducing a oligopoly to a monopoly. Corporate death penalties are usually worse on the market, consumers, workers, and people who own any kind of investments including retirement savings than they are on any of the people involved in the decisions for which you are demanding justice.
That could actually be good though, because it will create more free advertising about the ME.
FTFY. People don't care about the negative parts of it. They sure as hell wouldn't care about some copyright violation.
So jail them all? Not that I would be opposed...
To be clear, you wouldn't be opposed to the Government shutting down one of the two remaining PC chip manufacturers and granting a monopoly to the manufacturer who produces core computer parts all over the world?
I think you didn't think this through.
â'AÂ=>â'B
Translation: Your logic abilities are weak.
Oooh you can translate unicode? You should get a job at slashdot.
John Oliver literally has made incredibly vocal and public attacks against all those groups. He is literally the exact opposite of what you just described.
No one has ever accused the American government of not having enough money to pay for healthcare.
The American government hasn't allocated enough money to pay for healthcare.
That's a very VERY big difference and the amount they allocate has nothing to do with how much this comical protest will cost the government.
well, there is no documentation whatsoever abut the ME.
You've never been to Intel's website have you? There is a fuckton of documentation on the ME. There is with pretty much everything that gets used for corporate resource management and that is one of the primary selling points of ME.
Wait until you find out that engines need maintenance. Then I'm sure you'll campaign for the complete cessation of movement of people and cargo because it would never work right?
That makes a bit more sense.
Leave-with-a-neighbor doesn't work either. I had my items delivered to an elderly lady who then guessed who the items were for and gave them to another neighbor who then went on holiday for two weeks.
That sounds like a very VERY specific failure mechanism for leave-with-a-neighbour. In general this system actually works very well nearly all the time.
Now we are teaching children to accept being dependent on a single point of tech failure.
Haven't we always? Given the way people use their own personal devices I will happily recommend cloud based solutions to a lot of people. That "someone else" who runs "someone else's computer" is much better at it than the general population.
Good old pen and paper is still better, your brain retains the info better too.
At what? The latter part of your sentence seems to imply that they are reading from them, that's about one of the few things that Chrome books don't get used for in my wife's school. Now are pen and paper better at taking automated online tests? Sending emails? Editing documents? Visualizing complex math formulas? Displaying 3D models of the body?
Sounds quite like you're making a lot of very critical assumptions to bolster your argument.
Interesting comment.
a) They aren't cheap.
b) Google doesn't resell user data from people who's accounts are tied to Google Edu for legal reasons
c) "users" are actually users, there's no need for quotes.
d) These aren't PCs, they are specific devices designed to run specific software for specific purposes replacing locked down iPads
e) You don't expect your cloud vendor to knock you offline, especially someone with the size, and presumed professionalism of Google. What you normally expect is better, more stable and more reliable service than what can be provided by a lowest bidder IT service.
With 40 units it doesn't sound like an unmanageable situation that would benefit from outsourcing in the first place.
If you had asserted that most people don't hurt other people against their will I would have agreed with you, but "perverted crimes" is basically an undefined term.
So you completely agree with my post and the fundamental discussion I was replying to but you typed all that because you're hung up on a definition? Are you in Human Resources by any chance?
So back to my point: you estimate, you guess, what money you part with is not the advertised price. It is just a slowly boiled frog (not that slowly boiling frogs actually boil themselves, that's a myth), but it's setting an expectation of a final price not being what was advertised.
In many countries that just doesn't happen. The numbers on the advert, the numbers on label, the number at the front of the contract is it in full. "hidden" costs don't exist unless they are in the form of something that is compared to something else (e.g. the exchange rate a bank offers is a hidden cost when compared against the real exchange rate, but whatever the bank gives you, that's what you part with, nothing more).
If you have no previous direct connection with an advertised number and the money leaving your account you're likely to be far more accepting of hidden fees that make this situation worse.
People can (and do) deploy hidden cameras in conjunction with home security systems, for the purpose of identifying burglars or home invaders.
That should be easy to prove, show me all the other hidden cameras in all the other rooms. Or are you only worried about someone stealing the bed and the shower curtain?
Despite people's assertions, people who actively commit perverted crimes are actually incredibly rare given the general population.
This WILL NOT stop until you do!
Are you implying that it will stop if you do? If you think that I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes it will. If the guy with the 7500 bitcoins hadn't lost his harddisk, he probably would have sold them at some point, increasing the circulation.
The value of currency is based on supply and demand, not movement. No one is sitting around staring at people wallet checking for their movement. All they know is the total in circulation.
This is why a non-'anonymous' centralized system is desirable.
Nope. The forgotten passwords are a Good Thing, because each lost btc means mine are worth more.
Nope right back at you. The problem with the BTC public ledger is there's no way to identify currency out of circulation. The value of your bitcoin won't ever change without a system to clearly mark stranded coins. The system says there are X bitcoins on the market and supply and demand will play a role with that assumption of X.
No they wouldn't, listening to something is irrelevant without the context.
e.g. I'm listening to CCR right now. That helps the RIAA with precisely didley squat. They don't know if I'm pirating it, if it's being played in a nightclub without performance rights, if I'm listening to it on a CD, or if it's just random internet station of the day.
The amount of effort to correlate when and where something was played to determine if it is legal or not would borderline bankrupt them.
I hope they try it.
Memory is not there to "be used" it is there to speed up the system. Using memory inefficiently defeats that purpose. That's not to say security isn't a valid purpose, it most certainly is. Just be careful with the blanket statements.
So you carry a calculator?