I thought that the previous CEO came from the movie or content division, and led the company away from being a tech focus to a content provider. All directions from that decision lead to the problems that you mention. For many years now ( possibly 10) I have refused to buy any Sony product. The new CEO has a chance to change things back. I dont know his history of plans, but I am willing to pay attention to them for the next few years and maybe consider purchasing something if they can fix their reputation.
are you comparing reverence for the dead and what they may have stood for to having a worshipful attitude to someone who is not only alive, but still in power. The personality cult is similar in both cases, but the dead people are done talking.
I actually see quite a few people wearing shirts and hats with Obama written on them in giant letters, and his portrait on them. It frightens me a bit. I think of how North Korea puts a picture of dear leader in every house ( or the myth of that at least) . I also think how people would have reacted if these shirts were pro Bush. There is definitely a cult leader feel with some of his supporters, and it scares the hell out of me.
I understand your point ( and theirs ), but this truly brings up an impossible situation. Say someone is offended because they feel you are flirting with them because you make eye contact and say hello in the morning. So you stop that. No simple good mornings, eyes down, walk to your cube. Now someone else is in the group and feels that you are excluding them because you are going out of your way to avoid social interactions that could be misconstrued. These cases are obviously contradictory, and both result in some kind of HR tick against you, as you are now a mulitple offender of the "do not offend" policy.
You simply cant allow a completely open policy that leaves being offended completely in the hands of the person who feels offended. A restriction of customary and expected practices to the actions of people would suffice. When someone complains, there needs to be room for HR to tell them that they should get thicker skin if the case is obvious that their complaint should hold no water. The policy as explained to me wasnt just for an investigation, but an "investigation" that would produce a change. It was a lazy policy that could easily make someones job impossible, as it could be gamed by anyone willing to just be an ass.
no, and especially not in places that have these "stand your ground" type of laws. The idea is that a fair fight isnt promised to an aggressor. You never know how talented or strong someone may be. If you attack, you may be killed.
I once tried this on an HR droid. I was being forced through orientation of a large company as my smaller company had been purchased. The new policy was that all instances of harrasment and intimidation would be investigated, and that there was no standard of expected behavior. Any behavior that offended someone was based on teh one being offended, and therefore anything could be reported to HR, and therefore anyone could be investigated, for ANYTHING that someone chose to be offended by. I immediately stated that I was offended by such a policy, and that I would like to report HR to HR to open an investigation. The poor guy about popped. After attempting to just ignore me , thinking I was just being an ass, I did explain that I felt that the open ended policy was a threat to me, and that I was intimidated in my workplace as I was never certain what was an appropriate way to act or interact with my coworkers. They decided to take the verbiage to legal, and I quit soon afterwards as management that is this clueless will never change.
not tough to break in to, but now Dell has an existing installed base, some internal knowledge and relationships to support that base, and one less competitor to deal with. Buying this is probably cheaper than spending a year or two building it up.
nothing make me think for sure that a business was hacked. I would like to have had my question answered so I could know for certain what happened to my account.
you are correct, it may have been a processor and not the front end business. Even just that on its own would be good information to know, but that would undermine faith in the system, so VISA has a vested interest in not revealing that kind of info. I have worked in several PCI businesses, which have kept customer information on site, and which VISA performs regualtory checks on. The certification process is a bit of a smokescreen, and knowing that, I would really have liked to know if it was that type of business that screwed up.
I see no help in not letting me have information as to what happened, except for preventing people from starting to see how much they shouldnt blindly trust these companies ( so no help to me or consumers) .
In my specific case, no vendor helped. There was apparently a watch on a very large amount of CC numbers for anything suspicious. When I purchased 10 copies of McAfee for 100 bucks a pop, someone at the CC company took notice. As I said, there was already a new card on the way to me and likely many thousands of others. If nothing happened by the time I got the new card, then I call and activate and the stolen numbers can be forgotten. If something did happen ( which it did) then they were just more suspicious. I understand that they couldnt call every customer on that watch list, and this was the fastest way of dealing with the theft with as little interuption as possible. I still think that my request for more information should have a better answer than " They wont tell us that , so we have nothing to give you". It is all a shell game propping up fake security.
100% agree. I just went through this a few weeks ago. VISA told my card issuer that there had been a breach. They actually sent me a new card, but didnt tell me until fraudulent use occured. This was before my new card arrived, which actually shortened the amount of time that I had no credit card. I wanted to know who had the breach, so I could avoid ever giving them business that wasnt cash based, but they would not tell me. That part pisses me off. There needs to be an awareness as to which vendors dont find it worth their time to protect me , so I can make a decision to not use them.
this also happened in Mass around 2001 or 2002, where someone was getting harassed and decided to record the procedure. He was a musician and had a recorder of some sort in his car. After all the grief that he took, he brought the tape to internal affairs to have the offending officers reprimanded, and they used the tape against him in a wiretapping case. Now he has been harassed and arrested. WINNING
I hope so. The dispersants used after the Valdez spill turned a formerly thriving sea floor into nothing but sand and tar. the tarballs stayed there, bound to the chemicals that were preventing a natural version of the cleanup. I hope the 11km in this case is under the plume, and not some less-impacted location even though it is relatively close to the leak.
This misconception drives me a bit batty. All cancer, if not treated, is terminal. Nearly all cancer, when detected, is being treated. There are many many many trials and studies taking place, and the oncologist that the patient is working with will do nearly everything that they can to attempt to discover any that may apply to their patients. These trials are just further along the testing path then those that are not available. Maybe one of these will prove to be a solver bullet for a patient that is involved.
The idea of an oncologist telling a patient that they have 3 months to live is TV created tripe. They will state facts of the case, such as advances or reductions in the tumors, and suggest different treatments that have worse side effects if the current treatments arent working. The trials have minimum levels of health to be allowed in , so they are usually closer to diagnosis than death, but they are out there and in use all the time.
I just watched my sister fight cancer for almost two years, and even though I knew ( she didnt) that the discovery was too late and that this was basically a death sentence, it was never brought to her in this way. It was never 100% death within a time limit, so the goal was to treat as well as possible. there were 5 different courses of chemo attempted, and two fairly major operations. She declined a trial at the beginning, as the side effects were likely and horrendous, and there were other treatments with the same odds of success. When the last option was not working, the oncologist finally gave up as there was no other known treatment, and she was not able to travel for a trial. this would have been the "terminal" point that keeps being brought up. The doctor let her know that the pain from the treatment was no longer worth it as the tumors were progressing in spite of the chemo, and each course was preventing any quality of life. When this point is reached, it isnt time to go for random expirements, it is time for hospice.
and the dispersants that are dumped that cause the oil to sink prevents any natural survival from occuring. There were plenty of these chemicals sprayed, not because tehy are good for long term issues, but because they help PR when less oil is visible on the surface or beaches.
but it is a somewhat common side effect to many chemo options that are in use today. If there is an option with similar or less negative side effects compared to current options, with the other side effect of treating some possibly untreatable cancers, I think the decision is fairly easy
This is even true for a Delta ticket that uses an AirFrance plane. The Air France flight has great food and flight attendants that are under 45 years old.
It is probably a lot like driving in Boston. If it isnt ahead of you, it isnt there. Just move agressively to the right ( no need to look ) and anybody that can see you has the job of avoiding.
Seriously though, the scariest part of the whole thing was when up to my allowed speded limit, on the back stretch, I was supposed to be REALLY close to the wall. The track is banked and pushing me left, the car is built to go left, my hands are set to go left, and if I didnt catch the line right coming out of turn 2, I had to actually try to steer the damn thing up the hill and towards the wall. The first time I got it wrong I stayed low, but that screwed up entering turn 3 so bad that I about shit myself, the next time I made certain to get high enough for a smooth line.
so the patent itself admits to prior art, but that this way is better. The phrase "an improvement" should mean that anyone else coule use the idea and just " but ours is one better". Another improvement is apparently an entirely different concept and previous patents cannot be applied or considered.
this can be a bad idea too. You do not want the airbag to deploy AT you head, especially as you will be approaching it rather quickly. It needs to hit more towards your chest.
i drove a nascar a few years ago, and in the pits it was 12 and 4. The always turn left concept left your hands in the most control during the turns when you needed the most control.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that the previous CEO came from the movie or content division, and led the company away from being a tech focus to a content provider. All directions from that decision lead to the problems that you mention. For many years now ( possibly 10) I have refused to buy any Sony product. The new CEO has a chance to change things back. I dont know his history of plans, but I am willing to pay attention to them for the next few years and maybe consider purchasing something if they can fix their reputation.
are you comparing reverence for the dead and what they may have stood for to having a worshipful attitude to someone who is not only alive, but still in power. The personality cult is similar in both cases, but the dead people are done talking.
I actually see quite a few people wearing shirts and hats with Obama written on them in giant letters, and his portrait on them. It frightens me a bit. I think of how North Korea puts a picture of dear leader in every house ( or the myth of that at least) . I also think how people would have reacted if these shirts were pro Bush. There is definitely a cult leader feel with some of his supporters, and it scares the hell out of me.
I understand your point ( and theirs ), but this truly brings up an impossible situation. Say someone is offended because they feel you are flirting with them because you make eye contact and say hello in the morning. So you stop that. No simple good mornings, eyes down, walk to your cube. Now someone else is in the group and feels that you are excluding them because you are going out of your way to avoid social interactions that could be misconstrued. These cases are obviously contradictory, and both result in some kind of HR tick against you, as you are now a mulitple offender of the "do not offend" policy.
You simply cant allow a completely open policy that leaves being offended completely in the hands of the person who feels offended. A restriction of customary and expected practices to the actions of people would suffice. When someone complains, there needs to be room for HR to tell them that they should get thicker skin if the case is obvious that their complaint should hold no water. The policy as explained to me wasnt just for an investigation, but an "investigation" that would produce a change. It was a lazy policy that could easily make someones job impossible, as it could be gamed by anyone willing to just be an ass.
no, and especially not in places that have these "stand your ground" type of laws. The idea is that a fair fight isnt promised to an aggressor. You never know how talented or strong someone may be. If you attack, you may be killed.
they are just trying to make sure that the 99.99999 stays out.
Now if anyone else would please reject daylight savings...
I once tried this on an HR droid. I was being forced through orientation of a large company as my smaller company had been purchased. The new policy was that all instances of harrasment and intimidation would be investigated, and that there was no standard of expected behavior. Any behavior that offended someone was based on teh one being offended, and therefore anything could be reported to HR, and therefore anyone could be investigated, for ANYTHING that someone chose to be offended by. I immediately stated that I was offended by such a policy, and that I would like to report HR to HR to open an investigation. The poor guy about popped. After attempting to just ignore me , thinking I was just being an ass, I did explain that I felt that the open ended policy was a threat to me, and that I was intimidated in my workplace as I was never certain what was an appropriate way to act or interact with my coworkers. They decided to take the verbiage to legal, and I quit soon afterwards as management that is this clueless will never change.
not tough to break in to, but now Dell has an existing installed base, some internal knowledge and relationships to support that base, and one less competitor to deal with. Buying this is probably cheaper than spending a year or two building it up.
I have been waiting for the HeathKit tablet.
exactly
nothing make me think for sure that a business was hacked. I would like to have had my question answered so I could know for certain what happened to my account.
you are correct, it may have been a processor and not the front end business. Even just that on its own would be good information to know, but that would undermine faith in the system, so VISA has a vested interest in not revealing that kind of info. I have worked in several PCI businesses, which have kept customer information on site, and which VISA performs regualtory checks on. The certification process is a bit of a smokescreen, and knowing that, I would really have liked to know if it was that type of business that screwed up.
I see no help in not letting me have information as to what happened, except for preventing people from starting to see how much they shouldnt blindly trust these companies ( so no help to me or consumers) .
In my specific case, no vendor helped. There was apparently a watch on a very large amount of CC numbers for anything suspicious. When I purchased 10 copies of McAfee for 100 bucks a pop, someone at the CC company took notice. As I said, there was already a new card on the way to me and likely many thousands of others. If nothing happened by the time I got the new card, then I call and activate and the stolen numbers can be forgotten. If something did happen ( which it did) then they were just more suspicious. I understand that they couldnt call every customer on that watch list, and this was the fastest way of dealing with the theft with as little interuption as possible. I still think that my request for more information should have a better answer than " They wont tell us that , so we have nothing to give you". It is all a shell game propping up fake security.
100% agree. I just went through this a few weeks ago. VISA told my card issuer that there had been a breach. They actually sent me a new card, but didnt tell me until fraudulent use occured. This was before my new card arrived, which actually shortened the amount of time that I had no credit card. I wanted to know who had the breach, so I could avoid ever giving them business that wasnt cash based, but they would not tell me. That part pisses me off. There needs to be an awareness as to which vendors dont find it worth their time to protect me , so I can make a decision to not use them.
great idea. Instead of using Hydrogen as a fuel, we could cram a bunch into the engine while not in use, so it doesnt weight quite so much.
this also happened in Mass around 2001 or 2002, where someone was getting harassed and decided to record the procedure. He was a musician and had a recorder of some sort in his car. After all the grief that he took, he brought the tape to internal affairs to have the offending officers reprimanded, and they used the tape against him in a wiretapping case. Now he has been harassed and arrested. WINNING
I hope so. The dispersants used after the Valdez spill turned a formerly thriving sea floor into nothing but sand and tar. the tarballs stayed there, bound to the chemicals that were preventing a natural version of the cleanup. I hope the 11km in this case is under the plume, and not some less-impacted location even though it is relatively close to the leak.
This misconception drives me a bit batty. All cancer, if not treated, is terminal. Nearly all cancer, when detected, is being treated. There are many many many trials and studies taking place, and the oncologist that the patient is working with will do nearly everything that they can to attempt to discover any that may apply to their patients. These trials are just further along the testing path then those that are not available. Maybe one of these will prove to be a solver bullet for a patient that is involved.
The idea of an oncologist telling a patient that they have 3 months to live is TV created tripe. They will state facts of the case, such as advances or reductions in the tumors, and suggest different treatments that have worse side effects if the current treatments arent working. The trials have minimum levels of health to be allowed in , so they are usually closer to diagnosis than death, but they are out there and in use all the time.
I just watched my sister fight cancer for almost two years, and even though I knew ( she didnt) that the discovery was too late and that this was basically a death sentence, it was never brought to her in this way. It was never 100% death within a time limit, so the goal was to treat as well as possible. there were 5 different courses of chemo attempted, and two fairly major operations. She declined a trial at the beginning, as the side effects were likely and horrendous, and there were other treatments with the same odds of success. When the last option was not working, the oncologist finally gave up as there was no other known treatment, and she was not able to travel for a trial. this would have been the "terminal" point that keeps being brought up. The doctor let her know that the pain from the treatment was no longer worth it as the tumors were progressing in spite of the chemo, and each course was preventing any quality of life. When this point is reached, it isnt time to go for random expirements, it is time for hospice.
and the dispersants that are dumped that cause the oil to sink prevents any natural survival from occuring. There were plenty of these chemicals sprayed, not because tehy are good for long term issues, but because they help PR when less oil is visible on the surface or beaches.
especially the ones that we give them. Diagnosis is much simpler when you just look at the previous nights change log.
but it is a somewhat common side effect to many chemo options that are in use today. If there is an option with similar or less negative side effects compared to current options, with the other side effect of treating some possibly untreatable cancers, I think the decision is fairly easy
This is even true for a Delta ticket that uses an AirFrance plane. The Air France flight has great food and flight attendants that are under 45 years old.
It is probably a lot like driving in Boston. If it isnt ahead of you, it isnt there. Just move agressively to the right ( no need to look ) and anybody that can see you has the job of avoiding.
Seriously though, the scariest part of the whole thing was when up to my allowed speded limit, on the back stretch, I was supposed to be REALLY close to the wall. The track is banked and pushing me left, the car is built to go left, my hands are set to go left, and if I didnt catch the line right coming out of turn 2, I had to actually try to steer the damn thing up the hill and towards the wall. The first time I got it wrong I stayed low, but that screwed up entering turn 3 so bad that I about shit myself, the next time I made certain to get high enough for a smooth line.
so the patent itself admits to prior art, but that this way is better. The phrase "an improvement" should mean that anyone else coule use the idea and just " but ours is one better". Another improvement is apparently an entirely different concept and previous patents cannot be applied or considered.
this can be a bad idea too. You do not want the airbag to deploy AT you head, especially as you will be approaching it rather quickly. It needs to hit more towards your chest.
i drove a nascar a few years ago, and in the pits it was 12 and 4. The always turn left concept left your hands in the most control during the turns when you needed the most control.