Given the proper algorithms, statistical analysis can produce very accurate results. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not as simple as one friend you haven't seen in years posting something once correlates to you doing that same thing as well.
You see reports in business rags frequently about how dangerous social network sites are; with people getting canned or failing to get a job because of something a facebook friend posted. Your best bet is avoid the mess and don't use the social networks. Really, Google should be patenting simply considering users of social networks a criminal or deviant up front... seems to be the way things are going anyway.
He's right. If one dies, there's ten waiting to take his place! Hauling off the bodies is not very expensive. Where's the problem? You should be pushing for 18 hour days... slackers.
Only the DEV got burned?
- Either the manager cut corners & took risks by not hiring a tester.
- Or he did hire a tester which didn't do his job properly.
A decent tester would have spotted these shenigans long before launch, this probably would have saved you from burning the whole budget on an incompetent dev.
LOL. That would defeat the purpose of having a scapegoat in the first place!
The fact that this meme gets consistently modded to oblivion when there's more than enough evidence to suggest that it's at least a fucking possibility does nothing but increase the probability of it in fact actually being the case, at least in the minds of those not necessarily hooked on the Fox News/CNN tit...
Never say never, I suppose - but the idea does seem a little crazy. He's been dead for quite some time and there's been no problem justifying the foreign wars without him. There was also no problem doing it before any of us ever heard of him. Seems like a long and risky road for the government to take to get a justification that they didn't even need.
And you think Bin Laden would have kept quiet if he hadn't been killed? He would have had one of his videos out pretty damn quick with a copy of the current New York Times and pointing to the date saying "Haha, sorry guys! Better luck next time!"
if he was really the enemy then yeah. if he is really a puppet (think: actor) created by the military industrial complex to justify more foreign wars of aggression, then no.
Since he's out of the picture, they're now using Anonymous Coward to fill the role 'eh?
In my mind a crucial part of this story is that the guy was forwarding his company emails to a separate account. Where I work, that's been a violation of company policy for as long as I can remember. The email administrator should at least be getting chewed out for allowing mail to be forwarded *and deleted* from company mail servers without any backup in place.
I know for sure that my employer saves all employee emails and instant messages for some predefined amount of time. Had they done this - which I'm assuming should be standard practice for any corporation - they wouldn't have needed to try and access this dude's personal email account.
Mismanagement... but I guess they already knew that since they had let their CEO go.
You only think that because your preferred candidate did not win. It's true that the electoral college suppresses all but the two major parties, but it also gives better representation to states with small populations. Nobody gets less than one electoral vote.
I am biased because the guy I voted for didn't win. However, that doesn't change the fact that the guy with fewer votes won. I wouldn't be arguing about it if the roles were reversed but it wouldn't make the system any less broken.
In 2000, a guy with fewer votes than his competitor won the election. System broken.
George Bush won more electoral votes than Gore. He did not have 'fewer votes'. Popular vote is not required for passing laws. Are you saying that we should change that too?
No, but I am saying over 500,000 Americans votes did not count in that election. That's the problem. You have a right to vote... buuuut your vote may not really count anyway.
I wish people would stop blaming the electoral college. The system is fine. It is the method in which the individual states assign the votes that is the problem. Florida in 2000 wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had distributed the electoral votes by district, rather than winner take all.
Win California by one vote? You get all 55 electoral votes! How stupid is that?
The system is not fine. In 2000, a guy with fewer votes than his competitor won the election. System broken.
In 2000, Al Gore had 50,999,897 votes vs George Bush with 50,456,002. More people voted for the guy who lost the election than the guy who won. That's an example of how the system does not work properly.
So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".
Fines somewhere around 50% of their gross revenue would have been more appropriate, but you take what you can get.
I quit caffeine recently. Bad headaches for the first two days, but by day 3 I was fine. However, if I drink a cup of coffee now I'll get a headache again later that afternoon.
It's not just a simple case of consumers spending more because of infinite buying power. If you want to have a decent job and be part of the middle class (or better) these days college is not optional. Sure there will be the oddball who got lucky in some situation or another and pulled it off without college. I don't believe most people do. So, students (and parents) do whatever they have to do to get a college education. The government could regulate tuition rates at state universities... If they simply limited loan amounts to levels lower than what is required for tuition then we'd have fewer students and suffer as a country as there really would be a reason to offshore jobs.
I was fortunate, my parents paid for my education. I've prepaid for 4 years each at a state university for both of my children. Not everyone is so lucky, and as a country I don't think we can afford to ignore those people.
Sounds like a win-win for Apple. They don't have to pay for Intel, and all their users are forced to upgrade to new hardware. And all the OSX software vendors get to sell new versions of their software for the new platform.
I think it's more likely they'd switch to a new OS since their old programs wouldn't work anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Just because VoIP is a kludge compared to TDM or cell switched services, does not mean that the backbone equipment to do it will not be protected by the same backup systems as TDM or cell switches.
However, the tendency not to use POTS copper on new installs would mean that new payphone rollouts would likely not be as protected, not being powered by the POTS lines but rather by a site-local power source, which could even be just grid. So what you say may happen for newer last mile setups, but existing POTS lines would likely be tied to a reliable backbone, VoIP or not.
Actually there is more truth to it than you think. In my territory, once a land line is converted to a VOIP based service the local telco will no longer provide POTS to that household. You can cancel the voip, or re order voip service but you are not eligible to purchase POTS service any longer. At least that's how they explained it to me when I upgraded to voip. On the upside, the features like call block that used to be available on POTS are once again available on digital. Pity it's just a marketing ploy, though.
I believe the justification they gave was they replaced the line to the house with fiber, and would no longer be maintaining the old copper line required for standard POTS.
...and filed a patent for the implementation or call it execution....otherwise some clever company, that is better known for suing others in the industry,; that's had one of its famous patents invalidated recently, will file...and sue.
LOL! Electricity exists almost exclusively so people can be lazy. For example, you're wasting electricity posting on slashdot when you could be writing a letter or doing something else. Just because your idea of what it's okay to use electricity on is different than someone else's doesn't make you right. Unreasonable attitudes like yours are a problem in today's society. You don't want to do it, and that's fine. It doesn't mean that I don't want to do it or won't do it. If I charge a phone that way every day for a month, it would represent a 0.02% increase in my monthly power consumption. There are far bigger things to worry about in pretty much any household that has electric service. Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in eliminating cell phone (especially smartphone usage) entirely since they use far more power than conventional wired telephones.
The problem is inefficiency. Power drops with the square of distance. That means you need a bigass transmission source to get a small amount of power any distance away, hence why things like FM stations have 5 digit wattage transmitters.
Yes we have been able to transmit power wirelessly for a long time, no it is NOT practical or efficient. If you are enthralled with Tesla, spend some time reading some actual books on him, not just the silly piece by the Oatmeal. He was a fascinating man and worth your time to learn about, but you need to learn about him if you want to go spouting off.
He didn't invent some magic transmission technology we can't replicate, he invented an inefficient transmission technology that we can replicate, but don't, because he was not able to solve the efficiency problems (and it may not be physically possible to).
Radio stations use that kind of power because they want to broadcast a signal hundreds of miles in a very noisy RF environment. True, it's inefficient but you could definitely transmit power a few feet and use the power to run some device. Charging most cell phones for example only requires about 500ma at 5vdc. Even at 10% efficiency it's doable; just inefficient.
Tv's and electric cars, though.. that sounds like a huge stretch. I wonder if the FCC has properly studied this stuff - at the transmission levels you'd need for a car I would have to guess it would be hazardous living things.
They want to receive Google's indexing service free and they also want Google to pay them for the privilege of giving them free indexing services.
I thought they wanted Google to pay them for the privelege of using more of their content than can be justified by "fair usage", to the extent that people can read the excerpt on Google News and not even have to visit the original news website? Either I am misunderstanding something obvious here, or maybe I just don't believe that Google has the right to copy anything it wants for free and then make money from it.
Have you actually used the service in question? I use it regularly, and just looked again to be sure. Google gives a link to the article, and either a one sentence description or PART of a sentence. It seems like reasonable fair use to me. Here's an example news search for "fair usage": https://www.google.com/search?q=fair+usage&tbm=nws
You are right, but I think it's unnecessary hair splitting in this context.
I don't want pot to be illegal, but it needs to be regulated like alcohol. If you go to the store drunk as hell it is as rude as going there completely baked, and you have a major problem if you do that.
This is what I was referring to in GP's post.
I think that 856.011(1) is subjective enough that it could be applied to anyone who was thought to be intoxicated anyway (e.g. That guy is wasted and could stumble and knock these goods off the shelf). It doesn't say you have to cause damage, just that you have to endanger.
Slashdot Mirror
http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/09/07/239239/poll-based-system-predicts-us-election-results-for-president-senate
Given the proper algorithms, statistical analysis can produce very accurate results. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it's not as simple as one friend you haven't seen in years posting something once correlates to you doing that same thing as well.
You see reports in business rags frequently about how dangerous social network sites are; with people getting canned or failing to get a job because of something a facebook friend posted. Your best bet is avoid the mess and don't use the social networks. Really, Google should be patenting simply considering users of social networks a criminal or deviant up front... seems to be the way things are going anyway.
He's right. If one dies, there's ten waiting to take his place! Hauling off the bodies is not very expensive. Where's the problem? You should be pushing for 18 hour days... slackers.
Only the DEV got burned? - Either the manager cut corners & took risks by not hiring a tester. - Or he did hire a tester which didn't do his job properly. A decent tester would have spotted these shenigans long before launch, this probably would have saved you from burning the whole budget on an incompetent dev.
LOL. That would defeat the purpose of having a scapegoat in the first place!
The fact that this meme gets consistently modded to oblivion when there's more than enough evidence to suggest that it's at least a fucking possibility does nothing but increase the probability of it in fact actually being the case, at least in the minds of those not necessarily hooked on the Fox News/CNN tit...
Never say never, I suppose - but the idea does seem a little crazy. He's been dead for quite some time and there's been no problem justifying the foreign wars without him. There was also no problem doing it before any of us ever heard of him. Seems like a long and risky road for the government to take to get a justification that they didn't even need.
And you think Bin Laden would have kept quiet if he hadn't been killed? He would have had one of his videos out pretty damn quick with a copy of the current New York Times and pointing to the date saying "Haha, sorry guys! Better luck next time!"
if he was really the enemy then yeah. if he is really a puppet (think: actor) created by the military industrial complex to justify more foreign wars of aggression, then no.
Since he's out of the picture, they're now using Anonymous Coward to fill the role 'eh?
In my mind a crucial part of this story is that the guy was forwarding his company emails to a separate account. Where I work, that's been a violation of company policy for as long as I can remember. The email administrator should at least be getting chewed out for allowing mail to be forwarded *and deleted* from company mail servers without any backup in place.
I know for sure that my employer saves all employee emails and instant messages for some predefined amount of time. Had they done this - which I'm assuming should be standard practice for any corporation - they wouldn't have needed to try and access this dude's personal email account.
Mismanagement... but I guess they already knew that since they had let their CEO go.
What a difference there is between the US and UK. In the US, emails are the property of D.H.S. whether there is a law protecting against that or not.
You only think that because your preferred candidate did not win. It's true that the electoral college suppresses all but the two major parties, but it also gives better representation to states with small populations. Nobody gets less than one electoral vote.
I am biased because the guy I voted for didn't win. However, that doesn't change the fact that the guy with fewer votes won. I wouldn't be arguing about it if the roles were reversed but it wouldn't make the system any less broken.
In 2000, a guy with fewer votes than his competitor won the election. System broken.
George Bush won more electoral votes than Gore. He did not have 'fewer votes'. Popular vote is not required for passing laws. Are you saying that we should change that too?
No, but I am saying over 500,000 Americans votes did not count in that election. That's the problem. You have a right to vote... buuuut your vote may not really count anyway.
I wish people would stop blaming the electoral college. The system is fine. It is the method in which the individual states assign the votes that is the problem. Florida in 2000 wouldn't have been such a big deal if they had distributed the electoral votes by district, rather than winner take all.
Win California by one vote? You get all 55 electoral votes! How stupid is that?
The system is not fine. In 2000, a guy with fewer votes than his competitor won the election. System broken.
In 2000, Al Gore had 50,999,897 votes vs George Bush with 50,456,002. More people voted for the guy who lost the election than the guy who won. That's an example of how the system does not work properly.
Source: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
That's half a million voters whose votes basically did not count, and THAT is why the electoral college system is a problem.
So you wanted Al Gore to be president in 2000?
I did.
So two wrongs make a right? Apple's wrong was apparently to make some false statement about Samsung. Actually, now that I've scrolled down (Chrome, 1680 by 1050 when full screen), I see that it's more like a retraction than an apology. Retractions of false statements make good sense. I'm fine with that. Other news stories were calling it an "apology".
Fines somewhere around 50% of their gross revenue would have been more appropriate, but you take what you can get.
It's visible on my 2560x1600 main monitor but off-screen on my side 1920x1080 monitors. I thought it was supposed to be prominently displayed...
I quit caffeine recently. Bad headaches for the first two days, but by day 3 I was fine. However, if I drink a cup of coffee now I'll get a headache again later that afternoon.
It's not just a simple case of consumers spending more because of infinite buying power. If you want to have a decent job and be part of the middle class (or better) these days college is not optional. Sure there will be the oddball who got lucky in some situation or another and pulled it off without college. I don't believe most people do. So, students (and parents) do whatever they have to do to get a college education. The government could regulate tuition rates at state universities... If they simply limited loan amounts to levels lower than what is required for tuition then we'd have fewer students and suffer as a country as there really would be a reason to offshore jobs.
I was fortunate, my parents paid for my education. I've prepaid for 4 years each at a state university for both of my children. Not everyone is so lucky, and as a country I don't think we can afford to ignore those people.
Sounds like a win-win for Apple. They don't have to pay for Intel, and all their users are forced to upgrade to new hardware. And all the OSX software vendors get to sell new versions of their software for the new platform.
I think it's more likely they'd switch to a new OS since their old programs wouldn't work anyway.
That's not necessarily true. Just because VoIP is a kludge compared to TDM or cell switched services, does not mean that the backbone equipment to do it will not be protected by the same backup systems as TDM or cell switches.
However, the tendency not to use POTS copper on new installs would mean that new payphone rollouts would likely not be as protected, not being powered by the POTS lines but rather by a site-local power source, which could even be just grid. So what you say may happen for newer last mile setups, but existing POTS lines would likely be tied to a reliable backbone, VoIP or not.
Actually there is more truth to it than you think. In my territory, once a land line is converted to a VOIP based service the local telco will no longer provide POTS to that household. You can cancel the voip, or re order voip service but you are not eligible to purchase POTS service any longer. At least that's how they explained it to me when I upgraded to voip.
On the upside, the features like call block that used to be available on POTS are once again available on digital. Pity it's just a marketing ploy, though.
I believe the justification they gave was they replaced the line to the house with fiber, and would no longer be maintaining the old copper line required for standard POTS.
...and filed a patent for the implementation or call it execution....otherwise some clever company, that is better known for suing others in the industry,; that's had one of its famous patents invalidated recently, will file...and sue.
Because little things such as properly filed IP documents have stopped apple so well in the past, right? http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international-business/apples-iphone-loses-name-battle-with-mexicos-ifone/articleshow/17092765.cms
Did someone say fluffers? I'm in!
LOL! Electricity exists almost exclusively so people can be lazy. For example, you're wasting electricity posting on slashdot when you could be writing a letter or doing something else. Just because your idea of what it's okay to use electricity on is different than someone else's doesn't make you right. Unreasonable attitudes like yours are a problem in today's society. You don't want to do it, and that's fine. It doesn't mean that I don't want to do it or won't do it. If I charge a phone that way every day for a month, it would represent a 0.02% increase in my monthly power consumption. There are far bigger things to worry about in pretty much any household that has electric service. Maybe you should concentrate your efforts in eliminating cell phone (especially smartphone usage) entirely since they use far more power than conventional wired telephones.
The problem is inefficiency. Power drops with the square of distance. That means you need a bigass transmission source to get a small amount of power any distance away, hence why things like FM stations have 5 digit wattage transmitters.
Yes we have been able to transmit power wirelessly for a long time, no it is NOT practical or efficient. If you are enthralled with Tesla, spend some time reading some actual books on him, not just the silly piece by the Oatmeal. He was a fascinating man and worth your time to learn about, but you need to learn about him if you want to go spouting off.
He didn't invent some magic transmission technology we can't replicate, he invented an inefficient transmission technology that we can replicate, but don't, because he was not able to solve the efficiency problems (and it may not be physically possible to).
Radio stations use that kind of power because they want to broadcast a signal hundreds of miles in a very noisy RF environment. True, it's inefficient but you could definitely transmit power a few feet and use the power to run some device. Charging most cell phones for example only requires about 500ma at 5vdc. Even at 10% efficiency it's doable; just inefficient.
Tv's and electric cars, though.. that sounds like a huge stretch. I wonder if the FCC has properly studied this stuff - at the transmission levels you'd need for a car I would have to guess it would be hazardous living things.
They want to receive Google's indexing service free and they also want Google to pay them for the privilege of giving them free indexing services.
I thought they wanted Google to pay them for the privelege of using more of their content than can be justified by "fair usage", to the extent that people can read the excerpt on Google News and not even have to visit the original news website? Either I am misunderstanding something obvious here, or maybe I just don't believe that Google has the right to copy anything it wants for free and then make money from it.
Have you actually used the service in question? I use it regularly, and just looked again to be sure. Google gives a link to the article, and either a one sentence description or PART of a sentence. It seems like reasonable fair use to me. Here's an example news search for "fair usage": https://www.google.com/search?q=fair+usage&tbm=nws
I don't want pot to be illegal, but it needs to be regulated like alcohol. If you go to the store drunk as hell it is as rude as going there completely baked, and you have a major problem if you do that.
This is what I was referring to in GP's post.
I think that 856.011(1) is subjective enough that it could be applied to anyone who was thought to be intoxicated anyway (e.g. That guy is wasted and could stumble and knock these goods off the shelf). It doesn't say you have to cause damage, just that you have to endanger.