True - if it's inert, it's not really an infection. However, this is why you see Linux workstations running anti-virus software in an enterprise environment. It's not because your Linux system will get "infected"; it's so your Linux system won't inadvertently infect vulnerable systems.
If Cringley's numbers are approximately correct, I don't think IBM can get to a 78% reduction in 3 years using their current strategy of staying below the reporting requirements for layoffs.
Aren't they only voting to remove philosophical exemption from vaccination for children who will be in school?
In other words, isn't it true that the government wouldn't be "forcing" anyone, but only protecting those students and teachers who are using and providing services that the tax-paying public is paying for?
Actually, not so. According to the guardians of American social protocol, the form of address "President Lastname or Mister President" is reserved for the current president.
If chiropractic wants to lose the pseudoscience label it'll have to start producing some evidence that it actually works and distance itself from the Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carey/Oprah crowd.
More importantly, it will have to distance itself from the pseudoscience crowd who claim vaccines cause autism and similar disproven ideas that some quack made up.
Some chiropractors are cynical quacks who are out to take the ignorant public for an easy buck. Others are genuinely trying to help people with legitimate physical therapy techniques, but are frequently misguided by the anti-medical quackery that pervades the field.
There's no evidence that Sony is refusing refunds for paying customers. The article (which I actually read) asserts with no citation or apparent foundation for belief that those customers may not receive a refund. In other words, it's making stuff up.
Specifically, the article says: "In the process of removing the game, certain individuals who purchased it were reportedly unable to download it and were never given a refund."
Note that this was third hand information, no citation. Also, this also happened recently, so Sony may not have given them an immediate refund, but that is NOT the same as Sony refusing to refund.
Okay, the AC says it better than I did. People are making stuff up so they can vent about how awful Sony is. Sony may be awful, but this really isn't an example of it.
The only significant bit they are reporting is that Sony hasn't refunded the affected purchases YET. The article presumes that Sony will never refund them, which is extremely unlikely.
As far as people not having $$ to take them to court (if Sony ends up NOT refunding the purchases), that's BS in the US. Anyone can take them to small claims court, no lawyer needed, and very likely to get a judgement to refund, since Sony is unlikely to send someone to court to defend for not paying a refund owed.
I missed how this incident hurts consumers. In this case, they're not modifying your existing system, taking away something you already had, stealing (or exposing) your personal information, or anything else that people normally get upset about.
People who wanted to hack/homebrew their stuff have known for a long time that Sony isn't friendly to that, so they buy from others.
So, people are complaining because Sony is refusing to let them buy something on line? Or are the people complaining just complaining because they hate Sony, and they're really not interested in the content Sony is refusing to sell?
It sounds like the latter case, because I don't see people saying "I really wanted that game! Why can't I buy it now?" Instead, I see posts whining about how Sony is evil, they'd never buy from Sony, and trying to tie their gripes to this incident.
If you really hate Sony, the don't buy from Sony. There are lots of perfectly good alternatives. Vote with your wallet, go home happy.
The 1st Ammendment prohibits Congress from making a law imposing a limit. It doesn't mean that there AREN'T limits, it just means Congress can't make a law to create a limit.
The point folks are trying to make is that the Bill of Rights (1st Ammendment in particular) states that "Congress shall make no law..." abridging these rights, regardless of whether the subject of the offending speech is the government or private individuals.
On the other hand, as I think you are trying to point out, there ARE limits to the rights specified in the 1st Ammendment, primarily as an effect of applying the other protections of the Constitution to other people.
The government, practically speaking, doesn't have the protections afforded to its citizens, so virtually any speech against the government is "protected speech," whereas private citizens have protections that may trump the general protections of speech.
FUD to you, but reality to corporations who want to protect their assets. The big difference between the hackers now and competing companies in "the old days" is that these allegedly Chinese hackers are getting more assets in far larger quantities than corporate espionage has seen before.
Yes but changing your mind is a slow process, not something that happens in less than a year.
If a president can't change his mind about something in less than a year, he was not qualified to be president. The chief executive needs to be able to respond to changes, not be blindly attached to an existing policy in the face of new information.
Siri doesn't seem to work as well as it used to, according to Steve Wozniak. However, that seems to be more related to the results it provides than understanding voices (not counting the well-documented issues related to various non-US accents in English)
However, I don't think improving voice recognition is the only driver. I suspect Voice does the following: 1. Keeps people in Google 2. Increases the value proposition for Android with carriers who let you use Google Voice as your phone # 3. Broadens the suite of offerings for its business users
Slashdot Mirror
Speech is protected by the First Ammendment. Business is not so protected.
So, you can say what you want, but that doesn't mean you can legally charge money for saying whatever you want.
True - if it's inert, it's not really an infection. However, this is why you see Linux workstations running anti-virus software in an enterprise environment. It's not because your Linux system will get "infected"; it's so your Linux system won't inadvertently infect vulnerable systems.
It's not like we make as much money as atheletes, so where do programmers go when they are 40?
How much do you think the average 40-year-old former professional athlete earns?
I remember the story about Skype, Robo-graders, Gov't funded science, Robotics competition, Eliminating Comp Sci dept at Univ of Florida, but before that, my memory's kinda fuzzy.
Oops; we're talking about uploading videos, not search engine. My bad.
Not that there aren't LOTS of alternatives, but many of them seem to be, shall we say, "specialized".
Please Google do this. End your monopoly in Germany and allow the rise of competitors!
So true! If only Bing, Yahoo, Ask, or some other search engine were available there.
if by "managers" you mean "executives", then you may have a point. However, I'm pretty sure that low-level managers are affected by these layoffs.
If Cringley's numbers are approximately correct, I don't think IBM can get to a 78% reduction in 3 years using their current strategy of staying below the reporting requirements for layoffs.
Aren't they only voting to remove philosophical exemption from vaccination for children who will be in school?
In other words, isn't it true that the government wouldn't be "forcing" anyone, but only protecting those students and teachers who are using and providing services that the tax-paying public is paying for?
Actually, not so. According to the guardians of American social protocol, the form of address "President Lastname or Mister President" is reserved for the current president.
As a side note, there are a couple of interesting notes about the title in Wikipedia.
Regarding your Army analogy, see Eisenhower.
My short-term memory goes back far enough to recall John McCain.
You certainly deserve mod points for the effort. Thanks!
If chiropractic wants to lose the pseudoscience label it'll have to start producing some evidence that it actually works and distance itself from the Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carey/Oprah crowd.
More importantly, it will have to distance itself from the pseudoscience crowd who claim vaccines cause autism and similar disproven ideas that some quack made up.
Some chiropractors are cynical quacks who are out to take the ignorant public for an easy buck. Others are genuinely trying to help people with legitimate physical therapy techniques, but are frequently misguided by the anti-medical quackery that pervades the field.
I already said that.
So... your point is that you were prematurely redundant? ;-)
Either way, you were both right. Good point.
Well played, I'm sure, if I could understand it.... would you mind terribly translating that to REXX?
There's no evidence that Sony is refusing refunds for paying customers. The article (which I actually read) asserts with no citation or apparent foundation for belief that those customers may not receive a refund. In other words, it's making stuff up.
Specifically, the article says: "In the process of removing the game, certain individuals who purchased it were reportedly unable to download it and were never given a refund."
Note that this was third hand information, no citation. Also, this also happened recently, so Sony may not have given them an immediate refund, but that is NOT the same as Sony refusing to refund.
Okay, the AC says it better than I did. People are making stuff up so they can vent about how awful Sony is. Sony may be awful, but this really isn't an example of it.
The only significant bit they are reporting is that Sony hasn't refunded the affected purchases YET. The article presumes that Sony will never refund them, which is extremely unlikely.
As far as people not having $$ to take them to court (if Sony ends up NOT refunding the purchases), that's BS in the US. Anyone can take them to small claims court, no lawyer needed, and very likely to get a judgement to refund, since Sony is unlikely to send someone to court to defend for not paying a refund owed.
I missed how this incident hurts consumers. In this case, they're not modifying your existing system, taking away something you already had, stealing (or exposing) your personal information, or anything else that people normally get upset about.
People who wanted to hack/homebrew their stuff have known for a long time that Sony isn't friendly to that, so they buy from others.
So, people are complaining because Sony is refusing to let them buy something on line? Or are the people complaining just complaining because they hate Sony, and they're really not interested in the content Sony is refusing to sell?
It sounds like the latter case, because I don't see people saying "I really wanted that game! Why can't I buy it now?" Instead, I see posts whining about how Sony is evil, they'd never buy from Sony, and trying to tie their gripes to this incident.
If you really hate Sony, the don't buy from Sony. There are lots of perfectly good alternatives. Vote with your wallet, go home happy.
The 1st Ammendment prohibits Congress from making a law imposing a limit. It doesn't mean that there AREN'T limits, it just means Congress can't make a law to create a limit.
The point folks are trying to make is that the Bill of Rights (1st Ammendment in particular) states that "Congress shall make no law..." abridging these rights, regardless of whether the subject of the offending speech is the government or private individuals.
On the other hand, as I think you are trying to point out, there ARE limits to the rights specified in the 1st Ammendment, primarily as an effect of applying the other protections of the Constitution to other people.
The government, practically speaking, doesn't have the protections afforded to its citizens, so virtually any speech against the government is "protected speech," whereas private citizens have protections that may trump the general protections of speech.
FUD to you, but reality to corporations who want to protect their assets. The big difference between the hackers now and competing companies in "the old days" is that these allegedly Chinese hackers are getting more assets in far larger quantities than corporate espionage has seen before.
Yes but changing your mind is a slow process, not something that happens in less than a year.
If a president can't change his mind about something in less than a year, he was not qualified to be president. The chief executive needs to be able to respond to changes, not be blindly attached to an existing policy in the face of new information.
Siri doesn't seem to work as well as it used to, according to Steve Wozniak. However, that seems to be more related to the results it provides than understanding voices (not counting the well-documented issues related to various non-US accents in English)
However, I don't think improving voice recognition is the only driver. I suspect Voice does the following:
1. Keeps people in Google
2. Increases the value proposition for Android with carriers who let you use Google Voice as your phone #
3. Broadens the suite of offerings for its business users