The SmartTV has one thing going for it: Integration. One remote ships with the box that can access all the SmartTV media sources; instead of having two boxes, two remotes to manage, and have to pick the right input to switch from normal TV to streaming sources.
Trump's account never engaged in hateful conduct. Some people/reporters who didn't like Trump made their own writings using innuendo to imply that Trump's tweets meant or implied hateful things that Trump never agreed to.
Probably only designated personnel whose specific job is to do that are authorized to do so, but customer service representatives may have technical ability but No authorization to use that capability.
Can you do that? I mean selling when you know something bad happened and not selling when you know something good happened sounds like two sides of the exact same coin.
I don't know.... It would still be insider trading, BUT impossible for an investigation that makes certain assumptions to prove.
That's the the thing with trades is they can be cancelled at the last second. The decision to actually cancel is likely to be met with less scrutiny, although a long pattern of cancelling orders might cause some suspicion.
How about if you are an executive, then for every quarter you Pre-Enter a Sell Order assuming something bad will happen.... If you don't learn of anything catastrophic happening, then cancel or modify your sell order before it occurs and/or before it has to be reported.
Any investigation will basically always show you knew nothing about what the bad thing was at the time you created the order ----- Because it's what you knew when you failed to cancel your order as otherwise intended that matters.
The ability to login to a customer's account and check basic information to verify identity, reset a password, or turn off an account is NOT high-level access.
Minimum wage customer service representatives REQUIRE this level of access to customers' accounts to answer basic support requests or investigate problems. When Xyzuser calls in or e-mails to request their account disabled or request a troubleshooting assist, some low-level user is going to answer this request.
There's no way around that, other than companies SHOULD be very tight with auditing, and make sure to challenge any action on a customer account that doesn't have an explanation and a support ticket opened by someone else.
Partly because of tradition, partly because management lags behind technology. The ability to see someone physically is very convenient and perceived as beneficial for certain job positions -- like supervisor positions, facilities managers, salespeople who need to meet customers in person, AND partly because the productivity of certain important jobs depends on face-to-face contact, so those in those positions ASSUME it is the best way for all of their colleagues, even when their jobs differ.
WTF Market is 4 networks, who would consider allowing 2 to merge?
The regulators are ultimately not empowered to ban a merger unless it violates the law; their duties are quite the opposite -- they are working for the telecoms they regulate. The regulators' primary role in these proceedings is to settle up issues with the proposed transactions so that the applicants can complete their transactions without causing violations.
is a number of cells start to populate like there's no tomorrow, reproducing in uncontrolled ways that look too close to cancer for comfort. According to the researchers, this means we're damned either way.
So destroy those cells and bulk-replace them with younger cells that were pre-created in a different vat where they didn't have to compete.
Publishing in the traditional sense, meaning that it includes marketing and promotion - neither of which are now free.
You don't get Marketing and Promotion for free even if you do go with a traditional publisher ---- It will come out of your profits upfront; You'lll actually pay the cost of promotion AND THEN some one way or another, even if you don't self-publish.
Marketing and promotion of your self-published product is not massively expensive.
Are you saying something isn't protected by copyright when it's under development?
It's called "Unpublished work", and unpublished work if properly noticed is still subject to copyright protections, BUT the expiration timer doesn't start ticking until after copies of the work have been sold or publicly distributed ("publication").
Waiting? No, you quit trying. You move on because you can't afford to self-publish.
The speculation: "You can't afford to self-publish" doesn't hold water anymore. You can self-publish basically for free these days ;
there are PLENTY of options to market your works thanks to eBooks, Amazon, Lulu, Apple iTunes, and on-demand printing options.
Then that should factor into your calculation before submitting to a publisher.
A lecturer (most junior tenured faculty position in a UK university) makes, after a PhD, about the same amount as a computer science graduate from a decent university makes in their first job.
Of course.... their first job is not going to be lecturing though; It's going to require developing or using other skills together with what they learned in university in a real-world profitable endeavor.
This is the path most people should take, unless you have an extremely strong passion to be a lecturer. Have a real career, earn the $$$, live the good life, then go BACK to academics in retirement.
Professor is a voluntary role best assumed by those whose passion is to teach and give back; pay comparable to working in industry to attract people who are after lots of $$$ is Not one of the benefits of being in academics VS practice.
Eventually some will come around after their stint in private industry is over, or private industry will start giving back, because companies will want more people to be knowledgeable on the subject areas their business relies upon.
Ultimately some fields are so specialized that the training itself will have a high cost to entry, but this is not the purpose for students to attend traditional university.
Isn't it ultimately up to Qualcomm how they license their patent
Qualcomm can set out whatever private agreement they want with the manufacturer, but as soon as the manufacturer properly authorized to do so makes and sells the product to someone else (assuming the manufacturer isn't unlawfully infringing on the patent); all the patent rights involved in making and using that product the manufacturer is selling are exhausted.
If Qualcomm charges a hypothetical $1 to the manufacturer and $1 to the product that isn't different than charging the supplier $2.
Yes it is. If Qualcomm wants the $2, they better sell the license to the manufacturer for $2, either that, or force the manufacturer into some kind of restrictive covenant prohibiting the manufacturer from selling their product, where the buyer commits to present extra payments.
In this case... it sounds like Qualcomm is doing neither. They're not asking $1 from chip manufacturer and then another $1 from OEM. It's basically along the lines of getting $1 from chip manufacturer, and then demanding a "Specified percentage of your gross sales revenues in the final product" from the OEM; basically a $$$ amount that is no longer connected to a specific quantity of the chips being used covered by patent.
HIPPA, Pretty sure they'd be in deep shit in the US too if they kept *medical* info about you.
HIPAA regulations apply SOLELY to HIPAA-Covered Entities which are health plans and clearinghouses (Insurance companies) and health providers; the rules don't have any affect and cannot be enforced against anyone else, Except sometimes when a covered entity engages the services of a 3rd party company who will handle some PHI, the covered entity may be required to make the 3rd party sign a special agreement called a "Business Associate Contract" assuming some liability regarding the security of the information.
HIPAA rules DON'T apply to Google, with respect to messages in your Gmail box, or even your Google G Suite Inbox, that is, at least, unless you have a signed BAA contract on file covering that e-mail account.
A quality review should be based on a period of real-world use of the product. Basically sounds like they're using their position to limit the scope of reviews that might otherwise have been more detailed.
My suggestion would be that honest journalists would withhold their review until they got a decent amount of mileage out of the product; Only problem is sometimes the public listens to the FIRST source to write an article to make their decision rather than the better-researched, and a lot of people quite frankly don't even bother with reviews because it's Apple, they'll be in line the first day it's available....
Digital optical is utterly inferior to HDMI Audio.
Wait... why are we comparing a transmission medium with a specific protocol? HDMI Audio is a specific protocol. Digital optical is a medium --- and with the right transceivers, connectors, and transmission media can be used for 10-Gigabit Ethernet which can be used to send anything, so no... HDMI is not an inherently superior system, and I don't see Digital optical data transmission going away anytime soon, either.
Qualcomm's abuse in essence is double/triple-dipping. Licensing technology based on their patent ONCE, that Apple pays the manufacturer for a component that Qualcomm received royalties for its manufacture, then demanding patent royalties directly from Apple for using the Qualcomm chip.
Things are probably a little bit more complex than that, but in essence, attempting to double-dip is wrong because patent rights are "Exhausted" in each unit of product that you sell pursuant to the patent rights.
E.G. Suppose you invent a new type of fencing material, you patent it, and you start selling it. If one of your customers resells some of the material they purchased from you to a neighbor, then you don't have a right to go to your customer and collect patent royalties.
So it is with computer chips. Suppose I manufacture a video camera, and I want to use MP4-AVC encoding, so I buy H.264 encoder chip, and I use the chip to create a recording of captured content ---- H.264 is patented, so the manufacture of the chip had to pay royalties to license the patent.
Since I did all my encoding with the chip that was licensed from the patentholder': the patent holders' for H.264 have no patent right to charge me royalties again off of the same patent to record encoded content from the chip to a storage medium ---- their patent rights in my product were exhausted, because I already paid for a product that was sold to me in compliance with their patent rights.
Now it's true the end-user of my product could have to pay them royalties again, because they need to buy software or hardware to decode and/or re-encode my content to suit their needs, and the encoder or de-coder will have to use a licensed chip or be itself-licensed.
Apple probably uses a camera module in their iPhone. In this hypothetical situation.... double/triple-dipping what Qualcomm is said to be doing would be like a patentholder going after OEMs of the Camera module I manufacture that incorporates their licensed H.264 chips demanding patent royalties, and also demanding patent royalties from ME, because I used one of their H.264 chips as a component of my design.
Now consider how critical quality video compressed encoding formats are in this world.... the kinds of protocols Qualcomm chips implement are just as if not more important for Cellular communications to work, and the alternatives to the chips Qualcomm licenses are greatly inferior in terms of reliability, speed/performance, and power efficiency.
So Apple just switching out the Qualcomm parts could potentially in the short term mess up the user experience and cause all sorts of usability issues --- no small matter to completely switch to a different chipmaker's designs.
they did a lot of R&D and pushed cellular forward.
That was fine, until they got greedy. Now Qualcomm is shooting themselves in the foot. They were in a good position, BUT abuse it too much, and people will find alternatives to your products and penalize your business -- even if this hurts Apple as well because of extra costs --- piss off someone too much, and they'll cut off their own nose to spite their face, Or in other words, they'll take vengeance against you even at a net cost to themself.
would at least add one layer of protection beyond this
But it sucks for users. Also, the solution of VPNs doesn't even really scale when you consider the requirements facing companies like Google, and it's not necessary, and at the end of the day they still need to provide their internal services seamlessly to their internal users distributed throughout the world, And not have the access impacted by such menial things as datacenter failures.
The concept of an isolated IP network island controlled by VPN or "Dev" network for segmentation, or using IP Address as a faux authentication method are Legacy security ideas that really have no place in environments where Zero Trust has become the prescribed maturity model.
There are other technologies, starting with.... standardized images that only expose approved port endpoints to TCP/IP. Google uses customized operating systems on their equipment to that effect.
And since the public facing endpoints are the same as the infacing ones, there is no implied trust based on the capability to access a service, thus no excessive vulnerability to attack from "inside" hosts.
The last piece would clearly be strong authenticators which they apparently lack..... things like requiring a Client-Side Certificate or answering a cryptographic challenge to authenticate to the TCP/IP endpoints providing internal services.
Microsoft has a better privacy record with E-mail than Google, specifically because they don't have a policy that allows scanning users' e-mail to extract information for generating ads
If scanning a page takes a second, and you are paying $10/hr, then scanning a million pages would cost $2800.
I think you overestimate the cost of automated bulk scanning. Even so..... $2800 is miniscule compared to the cost to store and preserve a million physical pages indefinitely, which is approximately 10,000 pounds of paper. And ~30,000 cubic feet or 200 of those 10-ream boxes worth of paper to deal with, that has to be kept in a manner to safely preserve the content -- meaning moisture control, temperature control, and security.
This would more than fill an average sized office, or take out a good sized chunk of a warehouse or dedicated large-scale storage area, So
$2800 is probably a drop in the bucket compared to the rent for this much storage area.......
Slashdot Mirror
The SmartTV has one thing going for it: Integration. One remote ships with the box that can access all the SmartTV media sources; instead of having two boxes, two remotes to manage, and have to pick the right input to switch from normal TV to streaming sources.
Trump's account never engaged in hateful conduct.
Some people/reporters who didn't like Trump made their own writings using innuendo to imply that Trump's tweets meant or implied hateful things that Trump never agreed to.
Probably only designated personnel whose specific job is to do that are authorized to do so, but customer service representatives may have technical ability but No authorization to use that capability.
I found it interesting when I read that the SEC considers it NOT insider trading to cancel an order based on insider information.
Can you do that? I mean selling when you know something bad happened and not selling when you know something good happened sounds like two sides of the exact same coin.
I don't know.... It would still be insider trading, BUT impossible for an investigation that makes certain assumptions to prove.
That's the the thing with trades is they can be cancelled at the last second. The decision to actually cancel is likely to be met with less scrutiny, although a long pattern of cancelling orders might cause some suspicion.
How about if you are an executive, then for every quarter you Pre-Enter a Sell Order assuming something bad will happen.... If you don't learn of anything catastrophic happening, then cancel or modify your sell order before it occurs and/or before it has to be reported.
Any investigation will basically always show you knew nothing about what the bad thing was at the time you created the order ----- Because it's what you knew when you failed to cancel your order as otherwise intended that matters.
The ability to login to a customer's account and check basic information to verify identity, reset a password, or turn off an account is NOT high-level access.
Minimum wage customer service representatives REQUIRE this level of access to customers' accounts to answer basic support requests or investigate problems. When Xyzuser calls in or e-mails to request their account disabled or request a troubleshooting assist, some low-level user is going to answer this request.
There's no way around that, other than companies SHOULD be very tight with auditing, and make sure to challenge any action on a customer account that doesn't have an explanation and a support ticket opened by someone else.
Partly because of tradition, partly because management lags behind technology. The ability to see someone physically is very
convenient and perceived as beneficial for certain job positions -- like supervisor positions, facilities managers, salespeople
who need to meet customers in person, AND partly because the productivity of certain important jobs depends on face-to-face contact,
so those in those positions ASSUME it is the best way for all of their colleagues, even when their jobs differ.
WTF Market is 4 networks, who would consider allowing 2 to merge?
The regulators are ultimately not empowered to ban a merger unless it violates the law; their duties are quite the opposite -- they are working for the telecoms they regulate. The regulators' primary role in these proceedings is to settle up issues with the proposed transactions so that the applicants can complete their transactions without causing violations.
is a number of cells start to populate like there's no tomorrow, reproducing in uncontrolled ways that look too close to cancer for comfort. According to the researchers, this means we're damned either way.
So destroy those cells and bulk-replace them with younger cells that were pre-created in a different vat where they didn't have to compete.
Publishing in the traditional sense, meaning that it includes marketing and promotion - neither of which are now free.
You don't get Marketing and Promotion for free even if you do go with a traditional publisher ---- It will come out of your profits upfront; You'lll actually pay the cost of promotion AND THEN some one way or another, even if you don't self-publish.
Marketing and promotion of your self-published product is not massively expensive.
Are you saying something isn't protected by copyright when it's under development?
It's called "Unpublished work", and unpublished work if properly noticed is still subject to copyright protections, BUT the expiration timer doesn't start ticking until after copies of the work have been sold or publicly distributed ("publication").
Waiting? No, you quit trying. You move on because you can't afford to self-publish.
The speculation: "You can't afford to self-publish" doesn't hold water anymore. You can self-publish basically for free these days ;
there are PLENTY of options to market your works thanks to eBooks, Amazon, Lulu, Apple iTunes, and on-demand printing options.
Then that should factor into your calculation before submitting to a publisher.
A lecturer (most junior tenured faculty position in a UK university) makes, after a PhD, about the same amount as a computer science graduate from a decent university makes in their first job.
Of course.... their first job is not going to be lecturing though; It's going to require developing or using other skills together with what they learned in university in a real-world profitable endeavor.
This is the path most people should take, unless you have an extremely strong passion to be a lecturer.
Have a real career, earn the $$$, live the good life, then go BACK to academics in retirement.
Professor is a voluntary role best assumed by those whose passion is to teach and give back;
pay comparable to working in industry to attract people who are after lots of $$$ is Not one of the benefits of being in academics VS practice.
Eventually some will come around after their stint in private industry is over, or private industry will start giving back, because
companies will want more people to be knowledgeable on the subject areas their business relies upon.
Ultimately some fields are so specialized that the training itself will have a high cost to entry, but this is not the purpose for students to attend traditional university.
Isn't it ultimately up to Qualcomm how they license their patent
Qualcomm can set out whatever private agreement they want with the manufacturer, but as soon as the manufacturer properly authorized to do so makes and sells the product to someone else (assuming the manufacturer isn't unlawfully infringing on the patent); all the patent rights involved in making and using that product the manufacturer is selling are exhausted.
If Qualcomm charges a hypothetical $1 to the manufacturer and $1 to the product that isn't different than charging the supplier $2.
Yes it is. If Qualcomm wants the $2, they better sell the license to the manufacturer for $2, either that, or force the manufacturer into some kind of restrictive covenant prohibiting the manufacturer from selling their product, where the buyer commits to present extra payments.
In this case... it sounds like Qualcomm is doing neither. They're not asking $1 from chip manufacturer and then another $1 from OEM. It's basically along the lines of getting $1 from chip manufacturer, and then demanding a "Specified percentage of your gross sales revenues in the final product" from the OEM; basically a $$$ amount that is no longer connected to a specific quantity of the chips being used covered by patent.
HIPPA, Pretty sure they'd be in deep shit in the US too if they kept *medical* info about you.
HIPAA regulations apply SOLELY to HIPAA-Covered Entities which are health plans and clearinghouses (Insurance companies) and health providers; the rules don't have any affect and cannot be enforced against anyone else, Except sometimes when a covered entity engages the services of a 3rd party company who will handle some PHI, the covered entity may be required to make the 3rd party sign a special agreement called a "Business Associate Contract" assuming some liability regarding the security of the information.
HIPAA rules DON'T apply to Google, with respect to messages in your Gmail box, or even your Google G Suite Inbox, that is, at least, unless you have a signed BAA contract on file covering that e-mail account.
A quality review should be based on a period of real-world use of the product.
Basically sounds like they're using their position to limit the scope of reviews that might otherwise have been more detailed.
My suggestion would be that honest journalists would withhold their review until they got a decent amount of mileage out of the product;
Only problem is sometimes the public listens to the FIRST source to write an article to make their decision rather than the better-researched,
and a lot of people quite frankly don't even bother with reviews because it's Apple, they'll be in line the first day it's available....
They can't retain your medical information even if they find it, for example
No, they absolutely can do that if they want, well, in the US at least. In Europe they would be subject to privacy laws....
Digital optical is utterly inferior to HDMI Audio.
Wait... why are we comparing a transmission medium with a specific protocol?
HDMI Audio is a specific protocol. Digital optical is a medium --- and with the right transceivers, connectors, and transmission media can be used for 10-Gigabit Ethernet which can be used to send anything, so no... HDMI is not an inherently superior system, and I don't see Digital optical data transmission going away anytime soon, either.
Why is that exactly?
Qualcomm's abuse in essence is double/triple-dipping. Licensing technology based on their patent ONCE, that Apple pays the manufacturer for a component that Qualcomm received royalties for its manufacture, then demanding patent royalties directly from Apple for using the Qualcomm chip.
Things are probably a little bit more complex than that, but in essence, attempting to double-dip is wrong because patent rights are "Exhausted" in each unit of product that you sell pursuant to the patent rights.
E.G. Suppose you invent a new type of fencing material, you patent it, and you start selling it.
If one of your customers resells some of the material they purchased from you to a neighbor, then you don't have a right to go to your customer and collect patent royalties.
So it is with computer chips. Suppose I manufacture a video camera, and I want to use MP4-AVC encoding, so I buy H.264 encoder chip, and I use the chip to create a recording of captured content ---- H.264 is patented, so the manufacture of the chip had to pay royalties to license the patent.
Since I did all my encoding with the chip that was licensed from the patentholder': the patent holders' for H.264 have no patent right to charge me royalties again off of the same patent to record encoded content from the chip to a storage medium ---- their patent rights in my product were exhausted, because I already paid for a product that was sold to me in compliance with their patent rights.
Now it's true the end-user of my product could have to pay them royalties again, because they need to buy software or hardware to decode and/or
re-encode my content to suit their needs, and the encoder or de-coder will have to use a licensed chip or be itself-licensed.
Apple probably uses a camera module in their iPhone. In this hypothetical situation.... double/triple-dipping what Qualcomm is said to be doing would be like a patentholder going after OEMs of the Camera module I manufacture that incorporates their licensed H.264 chips demanding patent royalties, and also demanding patent royalties from ME, because I used one of their H.264 chips as a component of my design.
Now consider how critical quality video compressed encoding formats are in this world....
the kinds of protocols Qualcomm chips implement are just as if not more important for Cellular communications to work,
and the alternatives to the chips Qualcomm licenses are greatly inferior in terms of reliability, speed/performance, and power efficiency.
So Apple just switching out the Qualcomm parts could potentially in the short term mess up the user experience and cause all sorts of usability issues --- no small matter to completely switch to a different chipmaker's designs.
they did a lot of R&D and pushed cellular forward.
That was fine, until they got greedy. Now Qualcomm is shooting themselves in the foot.
They were in a good position, BUT abuse it too much, and people will find alternatives to your products and penalize your business -- even if this hurts Apple as well because of extra costs --- piss off someone too much, and they'll cut off their own nose to spite their face, Or in other words, they'll take vengeance against you even at a net cost to themself.
would at least add one layer of protection beyond this
But it sucks for users. Also, the solution of VPNs doesn't even really scale when you consider the requirements facing companies like Google, and it's not necessary, and at the end of the day they still need to provide their internal services seamlessly to their internal users distributed throughout the world, And not have the access impacted by such menial things as datacenter failures.
The concept of an isolated IP network island controlled by VPN or "Dev" network for segmentation, or using IP Address as a faux authentication method are Legacy security ideas that really have no place in environments where Zero Trust has become the prescribed maturity model.
There are other technologies, starting with.... standardized images that only expose approved port endpoints to TCP/IP. Google uses customized operating systems on their equipment to that effect.
And since the public facing endpoints are the same as the infacing ones, there is no implied trust based on the capability to access a service, thus no excessive vulnerability to attack from "inside" hosts.
The last piece would clearly be strong authenticators which they apparently lack..... things like requiring a Client-Side Certificate or answering a cryptographic challenge to authenticate to the TCP/IP endpoints providing internal services.
Microsoft has a better privacy record with E-mail than Google, specifically because they don't have a policy that allows scanning users' e-mail to extract information for generating ads
If scanning a page takes a second, and you are paying $10/hr, then scanning a million pages would cost $2800.
I think you overestimate the cost of automated bulk scanning.
Even so..... $2800 is miniscule compared to the cost to store and preserve a million physical pages indefinitely, which is approximately 10,000 pounds of paper. And ~30,000 cubic feet or 200 of those 10-ream boxes worth of paper to deal with, that has to be kept in a manner to safely preserve the content -- meaning moisture control, temperature control, and security.
This would more than fill an average sized office, or take out a good sized chunk of a warehouse or dedicated large-scale storage area, So
$2800 is probably a drop in the bucket compared to the rent for this much storage area.......