Proper out of office messages will also give you the name and number or e-mail address of the person to contact if this is an urgent matter. So for a routine issue, you'll know that you at least have to wait X days until the person returns. For an urgent issue, you can expedite matters with one more contact.
I can't see Daimler's solution being used anywhere to good effect.
True, but this is another reason why people should know that war is a horrible affair and should only be a last resort. If we combined that with a heavy dose of skepticism of anything that comes out of a politician's mouth, the world would be a better place.
There have been security guards who have harassed photographers for taking photos of buildings because the building designs are "copyrighted." You are allowed to take a photo of a copyrighted object. (If you couldn't, someone wearing a shirt bearing the likeness of any copyrighted fictional character could end all street photography in an area.) You may or may not be able to publish said photo (depending on the circumstances), but you can certainly take the photo and enjoy it for your own private use. Nobody is saying that the copyright of the original changes hands, but you own the copyright of any photo you take.
Awhile back, Toyota tried to claim that they owned a copyright on any Toyota vehicle and so any photographs containing Toyotas were owned by them regardless of who took the picture. (They actually used the DMCA to take down photos involving Toyotas.) Needless to say, they didn't succeed and you can take a photograph of any Toyota in public without having to turn said photo over to Toyota.
Private places can tell you up front that photography is not allowed (e.g. museums where the exhibits would suffer from the flashes or movie theaters). If they do, they can kick you out for photographing where you were told not to. What they can't do, though, is order you to delete those photos. They can contact the police, try to have you arrested, and sue for the photos to be destroyed. They can't demand that you hand over your camera so that they can delete the photos or detain you until you delete the photos yourself.
I did a quick Google search and it turns out it IS on the Discovery Channel. So score one more for Discovery going downhill. It's not enough to show someone trying to survive in a hard environment on a "reality" show. Now you need to toss a naked man and woman into the mix. For reasons. (aka Ratings.)
I read the summary wrong at first and thought that it meant they "fixed" ADHD by participants taking meth. If that's the cure, I think I'd stick with being uncured.
I'm not sure of the chemical makeup of the compound they are talking about versus the illegal drug. (Chemistry was one science class I always stunk at.) They might be somewhat-related with the name similarity. Perhaps someone can explain the difference?
My oldest has just gotten into Mario Kart 8. Should I strap him into the car, drive it down the highway at insane speeds, and have him toss objects out of the windows at other cars? Maybe I'm doing parenting wrong.
Kids should be taught that war is horrible, but that sometimes that horribleness needs to be undertaken to prevent something even worse. I don't agree with the "War is never the answer" bumper stickers I see here and there, but war should never be the first answer. War should be our last option after all other options are exhausted. You should beware of people who either a) think that you should never engage in war ever or b) are itching to rush into a war. The former will let atrocities happen while they wag their fingers at the perpetrators. The latter will cause bloodshed (on both sides) when diplomacy could have been used instead.
In a similar fashion, you can enter any mall in America and start taking photos of everything in sight. The mall can toss you out and even ban you from ever entering again. If you do, they can have you arrested for trespassing. The photos you've taken while there, though, are under your copyright and they can't order you to delete them (or, worse, seize your camera and delete them). Whether you can use them commercially is another story, but simply posting a shot online would be fine.
Not to mention that going to court to defend your Fair Use rights will cost you time and money. So if Big Corporation X says "that video you posted including a tiny snippet of our material is violating our copyright. Take it down.", you have two options:
1) Take it down. Pro: You don't spend a lot of time and money fighting a lawsuit. Con: You've rolled over instead of defending your Fair Use rights.
2) Keep it up and fight for your Fair Use rights. Pro: You are defending your rights. Con: You can spend a lot of time and money fighting the lawsuit. If you win, you might not get legal fees paid. If you lose, you might be liable for copyright infringement fines totaling many thousands of dollars.
Sadly, defending your rights against a giant corporation winds up being a losing proposition for most people.
I thought that they couldn't get any lower than the bogus survival show Man vs. Wild
I forget what channel it is on (perhaps Discovery but maybe not), but there's a show that tops that (by going lower, that is) called "Naked and Afraid." They take a man and a woman, strip them naked and toss them somewhere to survive. Of course, they blur out certain things, but you still know that there's a guy and girl there in the jungle without clothes on. Why? Because, of course, some people will tune in for the added "sex factor." I stumbled upon it while flipping through channels one day and could only take about a minute of it. (During which the guy worried that huddling near the naked woman to preserve body heat would upset his wife back home. He didn't think of that before signing up for a show where he's be naked with another woman?!!!)
If it wasn't for Mythbusters, there wouldn't be anything worth watching on Discovery Channel. It's a shame since, at one point, it was one of the bright spots in the cable lineup. Back in the day when "The Sci-Fi Channel" - not "SyFy" - meant good science fiction shows and The History Channel actually dealt with real historical events.
More powerful, perhaps. Smaller? Maybe not. We're already at the point where we can have watch-sized displays and full keyboards on our phones. The limiting factor is going to be 1) displays that are small but still readable and 2) input devices that aren't too tiny for human-sized fingers. As far as smart phones go (which, in essence, are tiny computers), I don't see them becoming much smaller due to these factors. However, I'm sure something completely innovative will come along that will make us look back and wonder why we thought it couldn't get smaller. Perhaps a Google Glass type setup where the screen is extremely tiny but fools the eye into thinking it is huge.
Some unknown-right-now innovation isn't obvious, however, or it wouldn't be unknown-right-now.
On the Windows side, there is one download site that I almost always get my programs from. If the program includes toolbars or the like, they will warn you about it so you can opt-out during the install process. They will completely weed out any programs that are infected. (The previously-trusted program that had a bunch that slipped through had been downloaded directly from the program creator's website, however.) It's not a fool-proof solution, of course, but it helps.
The number of programs that try to get you to install toolbars is frustratingly large. When I bought my new computer, I installed a bunch of programs that I regularly use. One of my usual programs, as I installed it, suddenly started asking me to install toolbar after toolbar. Only it didn't say "Do you want to install X." It told me X was going to be installed as the next step and I had to go into Advanced Options and uncheck multiple checkboxes to prevent X from being installed. Repeat for Y, Z, Q, etc. I must have slipped up and clicked Next too quickly on one because one or two of the malware programs got on my system. They then tried to bug me to install their buddies. It took me a bit to clean those off my nice, new computer. All it takes is one sneaky program (or one program you previously trusted going to the dark side) and one moment of not paying attention to get infected.
The risk is never zero. Even the most well designed controlled environment can fail. One would hope that enough safeties would be put into place that a failure of one safety system would be covered by another system. Similar to how you don't just toss an anti-virus program on your computer and call it secure. You have multiple layers of security on your computer/network to prevent malware/hackings/etc. However, no matter how many security programs you put on your computer, your risk of being hacked/infected never drops quite to zero. However you can drop it low enough that you can say with reasonable safety that you are protected from hacking/malware. So too the lab's controlled environment might not have zero risk of failure, but they might have multiple redundant systems to push that risk as low as it could possibly go. If you demand zero risk from any medical research lab, you'd effectively shut down all medical research.
I used to be paid by check years ago. The checks would be placed in a secure location and we would be required to go there to pick them up. I'd often forget to do so for a week or two. Then, I'd get the checks and would forget to deposit them for a week or two. Finally, the stubs (with some personal information such as how much I made) would sit in my work bag for months until I got rid of them.
Nowadays, I'm paid via direct deposit and my "pay stubs" are on the company intranet site. I can print them off if need be or just refer to them whenever I need to (which is infrequently). Having experienced both, direct deposit is MUCH better.
Not to mention that nature is constantly messing with genes and creating new, deadlier viruses. Knowing more about how viruses work and how to defeat them means that we'll be better protected against a superbug whether it comes from a terrorist group or from some random natural mutation.
Not doing any research because there's a small risk of the virus escaping the lab is the equivalent of covering our eyes and assuming that a hungry carnivore can't see us because now we can't see him.
Because nature does that sort of thing all the time. If we do it in a controlled, lab environment, we can understand what happens when genes get switched up and how to stop viruses. The alternative is sitting around until a lethal virus appears and then trying to quickly do research on it while people die. If the story was about some guy who did this research and didn't exercise proper safeguards on the viruses, I'd agree that this was stupid, but as long as proper safety protocols are followed, the risk of the virus getting out can be pushed to nearly zero.
Before someone says "but it's not zero and until there's zero risk you shouldn't do this", that's the same argument that the anti-vaxxers use against vaccines. "They aren't 100% safe so until they are we shouldn't use them." In the case of vaccines, the small risk of the vaccine causing some harm is dwarfed by the huge risk of the disease it prevents. In the case of this virus research, the tiny risk of the virus escaping is dwarfed by the benefit of knowing just how viruses work and how to defeat them.
My local library has all of that plus, through an agreement with Amazon, it has Kindle versions of books that you can borrow. The books download onto your Kindle (or phone/tablet/computer with the Kindle app) and can be read until the load period expires at which time they are deleted. (In fact, since I'm a New York State resident, I can take eBooks out of my local library and from the New York Public Library. The latter has a bigger selection but can sometimes have a longer wait.)
The original article asked if Kindle Unlimited made libraries obsolete. Even if the physical books, DVDs, meeting spaces, Internet access, etc didn't push libraries above Kindle Unlimited, borrowing Kindle books from the library/Amazon would. By no stretch of the imagination does Kindle Unlimited mean we can shutter all libraries.
I was going to ask this too, but now I fear I'd have to compete against tons of people whose slacking-off-skills are more advanced than me so I might not even put in the effort to apply.
Slashdot Mirror
Proper out of office messages will also give you the name and number or e-mail address of the person to contact if this is an urgent matter. So for a routine issue, you'll know that you at least have to wait X days until the person returns. For an urgent issue, you can expedite matters with one more contact.
I can't see Daimler's solution being used anywhere to good effect.
True, but this is another reason why people should know that war is a horrible affair and should only be a last resort. If we combined that with a heavy dose of skepticism of anything that comes out of a politician's mouth, the world would be a better place.
I suggest you read the Photographer's Rights site.
There have been security guards who have harassed photographers for taking photos of buildings because the building designs are "copyrighted." You are allowed to take a photo of a copyrighted object. (If you couldn't, someone wearing a shirt bearing the likeness of any copyrighted fictional character could end all street photography in an area.) You may or may not be able to publish said photo (depending on the circumstances), but you can certainly take the photo and enjoy it for your own private use. Nobody is saying that the copyright of the original changes hands, but you own the copyright of any photo you take.
Awhile back, Toyota tried to claim that they owned a copyright on any Toyota vehicle and so any photographs containing Toyotas were owned by them regardless of who took the picture. (They actually used the DMCA to take down photos involving Toyotas.) Needless to say, they didn't succeed and you can take a photograph of any Toyota in public without having to turn said photo over to Toyota.
Private places can tell you up front that photography is not allowed (e.g. museums where the exhibits would suffer from the flashes or movie theaters). If they do, they can kick you out for photographing where you were told not to. What they can't do, though, is order you to delete those photos. They can contact the police, try to have you arrested, and sue for the photos to be destroyed. They can't demand that you hand over your camera so that they can delete the photos or detain you until you delete the photos yourself.
I did a quick Google search and it turns out it IS on the Discovery Channel. So score one more for Discovery going downhill. It's not enough to show someone trying to survive in a hard environment on a "reality" show. Now you need to toss a naked man and woman into the mix. For reasons. (aka Ratings.)
I read the summary wrong at first and thought that it meant they "fixed" ADHD by participants taking meth. If that's the cure, I think I'd stick with being uncured.
I'm not sure of the chemical makeup of the compound they are talking about versus the illegal drug. (Chemistry was one science class I always stunk at.) They might be somewhat-related with the name similarity. Perhaps someone can explain the difference?
My oldest has just gotten into Mario Kart 8. Should I strap him into the car, drive it down the highway at insane speeds, and have him toss objects out of the windows at other cars? Maybe I'm doing parenting wrong.
Kids should be taught that war is horrible, but that sometimes that horribleness needs to be undertaken to prevent something even worse. I don't agree with the "War is never the answer" bumper stickers I see here and there, but war should never be the first answer. War should be our last option after all other options are exhausted. You should beware of people who either a) think that you should never engage in war ever or b) are itching to rush into a war. The former will let atrocities happen while they wag their fingers at the perpetrators. The latter will cause bloodshed (on both sides) when diplomacy could have been used instead.
In a similar fashion, you can enter any mall in America and start taking photos of everything in sight. The mall can toss you out and even ban you from ever entering again. If you do, they can have you arrested for trespassing. The photos you've taken while there, though, are under your copyright and they can't order you to delete them (or, worse, seize your camera and delete them). Whether you can use them commercially is another story, but simply posting a shot online would be fine.
Not to mention that going to court to defend your Fair Use rights will cost you time and money. So if Big Corporation X says "that video you posted including a tiny snippet of our material is violating our copyright. Take it down.", you have two options:
1) Take it down. Pro: You don't spend a lot of time and money fighting a lawsuit. Con: You've rolled over instead of defending your Fair Use rights.
2) Keep it up and fight for your Fair Use rights. Pro: You are defending your rights. Con: You can spend a lot of time and money fighting the lawsuit. If you win, you might not get legal fees paid. If you lose, you might be liable for copyright infringement fines totaling many thousands of dollars.
Sadly, defending your rights against a giant corporation winds up being a losing proposition for most people.
Or it would be the world's most boring version of Voltron.
"I'll assemble a third of the lower left third of the pinky!"
"I'll assemble the upper tip of the ear!"
"I'll assemble the middle of the right elbow!"
I forget what channel it is on (perhaps Discovery but maybe not), but there's a show that tops that (by going lower, that is) called "Naked and Afraid." They take a man and a woman, strip them naked and toss them somewhere to survive. Of course, they blur out certain things, but you still know that there's a guy and girl there in the jungle without clothes on. Why? Because, of course, some people will tune in for the added "sex factor." I stumbled upon it while flipping through channels one day and could only take about a minute of it. (During which the guy worried that huddling near the naked woman to preserve body heat would upset his wife back home. He didn't think of that before signing up for a show where he's be naked with another woman?!!!)
Discovery channel's rebroadcast of JustOK's post: "Aliens are responsible for the post deserving mod points."
(In tiny print displayed for 1/10th of a second at the end of the rebroadcast: "Some statements may have altered to fit the content of our program.")
If it wasn't for Mythbusters, there wouldn't be anything worth watching on Discovery Channel. It's a shame since, at one point, it was one of the bright spots in the cable lineup. Back in the day when "The Sci-Fi Channel" - not "SyFy" - meant good science fiction shows and The History Channel actually dealt with real historical events.
The one I use is http://www.SnapFiles.com/.
More powerful, perhaps. Smaller? Maybe not. We're already at the point where we can have watch-sized displays and full keyboards on our phones. The limiting factor is going to be 1) displays that are small but still readable and 2) input devices that aren't too tiny for human-sized fingers. As far as smart phones go (which, in essence, are tiny computers), I don't see them becoming much smaller due to these factors. However, I'm sure something completely innovative will come along that will make us look back and wonder why we thought it couldn't get smaller. Perhaps a Google Glass type setup where the screen is extremely tiny but fools the eye into thinking it is huge.
Some unknown-right-now innovation isn't obvious, however, or it wouldn't be unknown-right-now.
On the Windows side, there is one download site that I almost always get my programs from. If the program includes toolbars or the like, they will warn you about it so you can opt-out during the install process. They will completely weed out any programs that are infected. (The previously-trusted program that had a bunch that slipped through had been downloaded directly from the program creator's website, however.) It's not a fool-proof solution, of course, but it helps.
The number of programs that try to get you to install toolbars is frustratingly large. When I bought my new computer, I installed a bunch of programs that I regularly use. One of my usual programs, as I installed it, suddenly started asking me to install toolbar after toolbar. Only it didn't say "Do you want to install X." It told me X was going to be installed as the next step and I had to go into Advanced Options and uncheck multiple checkboxes to prevent X from being installed. Repeat for Y, Z, Q, etc. I must have slipped up and clicked Next too quickly on one because one or two of the malware programs got on my system. They then tried to bug me to install their buddies. It took me a bit to clean those off my nice, new computer. All it takes is one sneaky program (or one program you previously trusted going to the dark side) and one moment of not paying attention to get infected.
The risk is never zero. Even the most well designed controlled environment can fail. One would hope that enough safeties would be put into place that a failure of one safety system would be covered by another system. Similar to how you don't just toss an anti-virus program on your computer and call it secure. You have multiple layers of security on your computer/network to prevent malware/hackings/etc. However, no matter how many security programs you put on your computer, your risk of being hacked/infected never drops quite to zero. However you can drop it low enough that you can say with reasonable safety that you are protected from hacking/malware. So too the lab's controlled environment might not have zero risk of failure, but they might have multiple redundant systems to push that risk as low as it could possibly go. If you demand zero risk from any medical research lab, you'd effectively shut down all medical research.
I used to be paid by check years ago. The checks would be placed in a secure location and we would be required to go there to pick them up. I'd often forget to do so for a week or two. Then, I'd get the checks and would forget to deposit them for a week or two. Finally, the stubs (with some personal information such as how much I made) would sit in my work bag for months until I got rid of them.
Nowadays, I'm paid via direct deposit and my "pay stubs" are on the company intranet site. I can print them off if need be or just refer to them whenever I need to (which is infrequently). Having experienced both, direct deposit is MUCH better.
Not to mention that nature is constantly messing with genes and creating new, deadlier viruses. Knowing more about how viruses work and how to defeat them means that we'll be better protected against a superbug whether it comes from a terrorist group or from some random natural mutation.
Not doing any research because there's a small risk of the virus escaping the lab is the equivalent of covering our eyes and assuming that a hungry carnivore can't see us because now we can't see him.
Because nature does that sort of thing all the time. If we do it in a controlled, lab environment, we can understand what happens when genes get switched up and how to stop viruses. The alternative is sitting around until a lethal virus appears and then trying to quickly do research on it while people die. If the story was about some guy who did this research and didn't exercise proper safeguards on the viruses, I'd agree that this was stupid, but as long as proper safety protocols are followed, the risk of the virus getting out can be pushed to nearly zero.
Before someone says "but it's not zero and until there's zero risk you shouldn't do this", that's the same argument that the anti-vaxxers use against vaccines. "They aren't 100% safe so until they are we shouldn't use them." In the case of vaccines, the small risk of the vaccine causing some harm is dwarfed by the huge risk of the disease it prevents. In the case of this virus research, the tiny risk of the virus escaping is dwarfed by the benefit of knowing just how viruses work and how to defeat them.
My local library has all of that plus, through an agreement with Amazon, it has Kindle versions of books that you can borrow. The books download onto your Kindle (or phone/tablet/computer with the Kindle app) and can be read until the load period expires at which time they are deleted. (In fact, since I'm a New York State resident, I can take eBooks out of my local library and from the New York Public Library. The latter has a bigger selection but can sometimes have a longer wait.)
The original article asked if Kindle Unlimited made libraries obsolete. Even if the physical books, DVDs, meeting spaces, Internet access, etc didn't push libraries above Kindle Unlimited, borrowing Kindle books from the library/Amazon would. By no stretch of the imagination does Kindle Unlimited mean we can shutter all libraries.
I was going to post about how mail fraud was Comcast's religious beliefs but it wound up sounding depressingly accurate and not funny like I intended.
There's "it's funny because it's true" and there's "it's too true to be funny."
I was going to ask this too, but now I fear I'd have to compete against tons of people whose slacking-off-skills are more advanced than me so I might not even put in the effort to apply.
Unless said company had a regional monopoly and was big enough to lobby to keep the rules favoring them. *cough* Comcast *cough*