"fails to remove my kids from the back seat before firebombing the car"
That's probably a good Darwinistic approach - anyone who leaves their kids in a locked garage should not be allowed to pollute the gene pool..
Joking aside, I'm no fan of Apple either, they are too much control freaks. Just in this *specific* instance they appear to act more sensibly - I just wonder how long that self restraint will last..
"I need IT" "Fine, what for?" "I'm setting up a private bank" "OK, what exactly are you going to do?" "We're not there yet, but I need a figure for IT" "OK, about 1M for the basics" "That's too much"
This is setting up a bank from scratch, nobody has an idea of transaction volumes, AUM, number of branches, staff, processes, compliance (heck, not even an idea which regulatory place it will run it) - but they "need IT" and they already know that x is "too much". At that point I wished them luck - I am 100% sure they'll get a cheap bid and then play about 3x as much later through "change control" (the usual consulting trick). Not my problem, nor do I want it to be mine..
I can't understand why they want to go through the trouble of pumping very corrosive seawater (with the occasional squid or barnacle in it) instead of just hanging a radiator in the sea and pump their own coolant through it.
Key question: when does electrical activity stop being meaningful? Even when a body falls apart I would imagine there will be measurable effects, but more of a galvanic origin.
I can't believe they are actually serious about this. Let's do the car analogy. I sell you a car, and find out later that a lot of those cars have been used as getaway cars in robberies etc. The police would like me to withdraw this car from the market.
So, doorbell rings on Sunday afternoon and a guy stands there with a box with has everything you left in the car, an envelope with the payments you have already made and a confirmation that the rest of your loan is cancelled, and he wants your remaining keys (because they kept a set when they sold you that car - think about that one for a moment). And he shows you the clause in your agreement in 6 point font in light grey on white where they make this legal. The car is about to be towed - they opened your garage already because they somehow gained access.
You need "car functionality": You have to bring the kids to school on Monday, you have a work appointment straight after, and you have to do some shopping because it got late on Saturday.
Would you:
(a) thank the guy, accept the box and figure out WTF to do next (b) tell the guy to drop the box, hand over his copy of your car keys and tell him to be off your drive -minus your car- before you come back to the door with an appliance to assist in his removal which may or may not consider his health in the process.
Bonus question: Would you EVER consider buying a car from that company again, even if it somehow got sorted out?
This gig has just closed the market for me for phones with an MS OS. I hope Apple doesn't try to pull this one either - they have no removal clause in their T&Cs (which is probably why they are rather retentive in their app checking to start with).
Where the hell have we got to over the last decade? Since when did it become acceptable for a company to become judge and jury about what you buy?/rant
Well, I'm waiting for one that has a more accurate name, like WANKERS. I just can't be bothered to think what it would stand for (unintentional but not unwelcome pun:-)).
Umm, by proving the information posted is factually wrong? Don't get me wrong, as far as I can assess from the write-up the guy is a dick, but the first point to assess is if the information in question is justified criticism or plain lies - that someone doesn't like the guy doesn't automatically allow them to defame him, and I would support an effort to go after those people.
However, if the information is factually accurate, just not terribly good for the guy, tough luck. Any decent court (OK, nebulous concept) ought to reject stuff like this post Bush with the remark that he'll have to prove the information to be false. That's in principle a bit unfair (as he's guilty until he proves his innocence) but the one way NOT to address is by bullying. That has a tendency to turn into the Streisand effect..
The main reason people do blatantly stupid things online is because their desire for their privacy has been eroded by both governments (terrorist! look out! be scared! Don't think about us filling our pockets and let economies crash!) and online merchants that mine your data, like Google. On top of that, the consequences have been played down - find a good story of someone who had their identity stolen and their life ruined.
It is clearly illustrated by the volume of people that think the Swiss are too uptight asking Google to do what it promised or face being taken to court - 10 years ago Google would not find it possible to make it possible to zoom in on someone's window from across the planet without getting shot by Data Protection people (in that context I find it intriguing that all the "other" EU Data Protection people have been silent - are Switzerland and Japan the last places on earth where privacy counts?).
Oh, note to idiots: before you start talking about "nazi gold" and "tax evaders" I suggest you do some research.
You could also highlight the Google Terms of Service, clause 11: it more or less states that they can take the pictures of your kids and use them, for free, anywhere, forever, and altered in whatever form they see fit. Think about that one..
Google's Terms of Service suck. Clause 11 needs to become much narrower, and preferabbly have some permission process in it. Until they fix that, the whole effort is just bla bla.
I'm extrapolating, of course, but if *I* can imagine how this would work, I can imagine a club of people hell bent on removing the last fragments of our privacy must have gone there before..
In this context I'd suggest a look at Google too. The more you lift the covers, the less appealing they become, and IMHO that is a shame. From what I read I'm not yet convinced they ARE evil, but it is certain they don't appear to care much about privacy - continuing a trend started with Bush/Blair.
Privacy, like freedom, is a right you should not give up so easily. At present there is really a war against privacy rather than terrorists. It's not fought with bullets, but by bit-by-bit corruption of principles. Just say no.
The only acceptable way this could work is if the device records in such a way they can detect alterations, and they can look at a span of time (say 15 mins) before and after an incident that generated an insurance claim - the rest of their life is of no interest. And that view only after you, as parent, can review before giving permission (apart from your human right to privacy you are also entitled to refrain from self incrimination - it appears you have to give up that right too).
Otherwise your child could (worst case) actually become part of a national covert surveillance system. It would be better if people coming up with such ideas thought about maybe giving some extra training, or limit the power of the car kids may have for the first year - something that doesn't involve even MORE spying on people but brings some knowledge.
In the UK they had a series where frequent joyriders had to go through a programme. Nothing worked, until they were ordered to help at an accident scene - having to help to cut kids their own age out of the wreckage.
Having said that, there's no way my car will be any more economical than it is right now, regardsless of how gentle I drive - 4 wheel drive has its price. And at top speed is frankly gets embarrassing as that takes 5x as much fuel as a normal 70mph trip would - but I've only done that once out of curiosity:-)
I love that "you're hitting Google because they're popular" - I think I heard that approach before, from Microsoft. Strange how those two have become so close in both monopoly and disregard, no, disrespect for their users. If MS allows you to zoom in then they need to be taken to task too.
Let me go back to my original statement, do some research before you speak. Read through the Google Terms of Service (clause 9 giveth, and 11 taketh most of it away), look at what the various privacy and data protection laws state and then form an opinion if Google isn't starting to go to the wrong side. Let me remind you that they make a substantial profit out of stalking you because they can place better focused ads. And to be fair, they're not the only ones mining your data, Facebook is at it too, but Google has placed itself so it has access to EVERYTHING you do - your email, your pictures, people you talk to - all I'm waiting for is a tapped version of Skype. Actually, why not give them an ECHELON and CARNIVORE feed too?
Google has an excellent opportunity in Switzerland to prove they can do it right - if they convince the Swiss the rest of Europe will be a walk in the park. But they sure as hell have to start.
Google has good products so they should not need to invade privacy, yet they do. Microsoft had the market and didn't need to fight dirty, yet it did, even with enthusiasm. A bit of self restraint would go a long way, yet that is wholly absent, instead you get, well, BS. Strange parallels..
Oh, for the record, I'm not paid by MS and I haven only recently heard they seem to be campaigning against Google. Well, I think they ought to clean their own yard first - and try to match the innovation Google has offered over the years. But that doesn't excuse Google.
I *want* Google to do things right because I would like to use those services too. But any doctor, for instance, using Google at present will violate HIPAA. Any attorney emailing to a Google address may be violating client privilege. Not good. That way the NSA will never get planet wide coverage. Tsk tsk.
"I think that is just mean to align with the side of the street"
You may want to just spend 5 seconds trying it out, then you don't have to "assume" anything. You will see it pops up a magnifying glass. There is IMHO zero need for that. Nil. I cannot see anything positive coming from that.
It's not about "the worst thing that could happen", it's about "least impact on personal lives". I don't know where you live so this may come as a shock, but privacy is actually a fundamental human right:
Article 12 No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
But it's Google. So that's alright then? Just because their marketing people are better at appearing even handed?
What Google has done is the equivalent of putting your name somewhere in Yellow Pages, but not telling you under which category. You won't find it unless you put a lot of effort in, so that's going to be a fun one to explain when you're under "Red Light district, men" and your boss finds it..
But this is actually minor stuff. Google have done something else that far out-creeps the non-masked faces. Did you notice Google Streetview specifically ENCOURAGES you to zoom in on people's windows? No? Try it, pick any street and move the mouse over the window - see what happens. WTF?
I would really, really, like to see how they explain that one away as protecting privacy.
Google should maybe, just maybe, start thinking a little bit less like an outsourced arm of the NSA, and consider that not every country has the same destructive attitude to privacy.
Yes, but not as well thanks to MS-only extensions. And working with anyone's calender but your own isn't something I worked out when I needed it (didn't spend too much time on it, though - just called the guy:-).
AFAIK, Google publishing pictures with people on without their permission for commercial gain is a breach of privacy laws in various countries (IANAL, so I may have this wrong), so it's putting the world upside down to help people going after the abuse Google themselves have enabled.
I'm not even worried about the contact lens floating - how are you going to cable this? It needs power, and unless someone simultaneously invents a saline based generator you'll need to connect it somewhere.
I'll be really impressed if they solve that, so far it's not even interesting..
Slashdot Mirror
"fails to remove my kids from the back seat before firebombing the car"
That's probably a good Darwinistic approach - anyone who leaves their kids in a locked garage should not be allowed to pollute the gene pool..
Joking aside, I'm no fan of Apple either, they are too much control freaks. Just in this *specific* instance they appear to act more sensibly - I just wonder how long that self restraint will last..
Shall I go ahead and mass-produce labels "t*ts may have been photographically altered?"
I can see the point, but I really don't think this is something you can fix with a law.
You might want to be careful with calling something "creamy"..
Just mod a Japanese toilet, as soon as it detects "remnants" it should switch to powerjet. Also teaches you to never do that again..
Imaging the conversation:
"I need IT"
"Fine, what for?"
"I'm setting up a private bank"
"OK, what exactly are you going to do?"
"We're not there yet, but I need a figure for IT"
"OK, about 1M for the basics"
"That's too much"
This is setting up a bank from scratch, nobody has an idea of transaction volumes, AUM, number of branches, staff, processes, compliance (heck, not even an idea which regulatory place it will run it) - but they "need IT" and they already know that x is "too much". At that point I wished them luck - I am 100% sure they'll get a cheap bid and then play about 3x as much later through "change control" (the usual consulting trick). Not my problem, nor do I want it to be mine..
I can't understand why they want to go through the trouble of pumping very corrosive seawater (with the occasional squid or barnacle in it) instead of just hanging a radiator in the sea and pump their own coolant through it.
Did I miss something?
Key question: when does electrical activity stop being meaningful? Even when a body falls apart I would imagine there will be measurable effects, but more of a galvanic origin.
I can't believe they are actually serious about this. Let's do the car analogy. I sell you a car, and find out later that a lot of those cars have been used as getaway cars in robberies etc. The police would like me to withdraw this car from the market.
So, doorbell rings on Sunday afternoon and a guy stands there with a box with has everything you left in the car, an envelope with the payments you have already made and a confirmation that the rest of your loan is cancelled, and he wants your remaining keys (because they kept a set when they sold you that car - think about that one for a moment). And he shows you the clause in your agreement in 6 point font in light grey on white where they make this legal. The car is about to be towed - they opened your garage already because they somehow gained access.
You need "car functionality": You have to bring the kids to school on Monday, you have a work appointment straight after, and you have to do some shopping because it got late on Saturday.
Would you:
(a) thank the guy, accept the box and figure out WTF to do next
(b) tell the guy to drop the box, hand over his copy of your car keys and tell him to be off your drive -minus your car- before you come back to the door with an appliance to assist in his removal which may or may not consider his health in the process.
Bonus question:
Would you EVER consider buying a car from that company again, even if it somehow got sorted out?
This gig has just closed the market for me for phones with an MS OS. I hope Apple doesn't try to pull this one either - they have no removal clause in their T&Cs (which is probably why they are rather retentive in their app checking to start with).
Where the hell have we got to over the last decade? Since when did it become acceptable for a company to become judge and jury about what you buy? /rant
Well, I'm waiting for one that has a more accurate name, like WANKERS. I just can't be bothered to think what it would stand for (unintentional but not unwelcome pun :-)).
Does the government really think that only the US can come up with tough-to-break encryption schemes?
Especially since AES is in principle Rijndael, which is of Belgian origin :-)
How does he know they're libelous posters?
Umm, by proving the information posted is factually wrong? Don't get me wrong, as far as I can assess from the write-up the guy is a dick, but the first point to assess is if the information in question is justified criticism or plain lies - that someone doesn't like the guy doesn't automatically allow them to defame him, and I would support an effort to go after those people.
However, if the information is factually accurate, just not terribly good for the guy, tough luck. Any decent court (OK, nebulous concept) ought to reject stuff like this post Bush with the remark that he'll have to prove the information to be false. That's in principle a bit unfair (as he's guilty until he proves his innocence) but the one way NOT to address is by bullying. That has a tendency to turn into the Streisand effect..
The main reason people do blatantly stupid things online is because their desire for their privacy has been eroded by both governments (terrorist! look out! be scared! Don't think about us filling our pockets and let economies crash!) and online merchants that mine your data, like Google. On top of that, the consequences have been played down - find a good story of someone who had their identity stolen and their life ruined.
It is clearly illustrated by the volume of people that think the Swiss are too uptight asking Google to do what it promised or face being taken to court - 10 years ago Google would not find it possible to make it possible to zoom in on someone's window from across the planet without getting shot by Data Protection people (in that context I find it intriguing that all the "other" EU Data Protection people have been silent - are Switzerland and Japan the last places on earth where privacy counts?).
Oh, note to idiots: before you start talking about "nazi gold" and "tax evaders" I suggest you do some research.
You could also highlight the Google Terms of Service, clause 11: it more or less states that they can take the pictures of your kids and use them, for free, anywhere, forever, and altered in whatever form they see fit. Think about that one..
Google's Terms of Service suck. Clause 11 needs to become much narrower, and preferabbly have some permission process in it. Until they fix that, the whole effort is just bla bla.
I'm extrapolating, of course, but if *I* can imagine how this would work, I can imagine a club of people hell bent on removing the last fragments of our privacy must have gone there before..
In this context I'd suggest a look at Google too. The more you lift the covers, the less appealing they become, and IMHO that is a shame. From what I read I'm not yet convinced they ARE evil, but it is certain they don't appear to care much about privacy - continuing a trend started with Bush/Blair.
I don't think that's a good idea.
Privacy, like freedom, is a right you should not give up so easily. At present there is really a war against privacy rather than terrorists. It's not fought with bullets, but by bit-by-bit corruption of principles. Just say no.
The only acceptable way this could work is if the device records in such a way they can detect alterations, and they can look at a span of time (say 15 mins) before and after an incident that generated an insurance claim - the rest of their life is of no interest. And that view only after you, as parent, can review before giving permission (apart from your human right to privacy you are also entitled to refrain from self incrimination - it appears you have to give up that right too).
Otherwise your child could (worst case) actually become part of a national covert surveillance system. It would be better if people coming up with such ideas thought about maybe giving some extra training, or limit the power of the car kids may have for the first year - something that doesn't involve even MORE spying on people but brings some knowledge.
In the UK they had a series where frequent joyriders had to go through a programme. Nothing worked, until they were ordered to help at an accident scene - having to help to cut kids their own age out of the wreckage.
The BBC Top Gear team did a different experiment: worth having a look.
Having said that, there's no way my car will be any more economical than it is right now, regardsless of how gentle I drive - 4 wheel drive has its price. And at top speed is frankly gets embarrassing as that takes 5x as much fuel as a normal 70mph trip would - but I've only done that once out of curiosity :-)
You cannot possibly come up with a more transparent ploy to get game consoles for the whole department. I bet the next stage is "simulation at home"..
In all seriousness, there appears to be call for what I would call Geowulf clusters (a Beowulf cluster of graphics processors)..
I love that "you're hitting Google because they're popular" - I think I heard that approach before, from Microsoft. Strange how those two have become so close in both monopoly and disregard, no, disrespect for their users. If MS allows you to zoom in then they need to be taken to task too.
Let me go back to my original statement, do some research before you speak. Read through the Google Terms of Service (clause 9 giveth, and 11 taketh most of it away), look at what the various privacy and data protection laws state and then form an opinion if Google isn't starting to go to the wrong side. Let me remind you that they make a substantial profit out of stalking you because they can place better focused ads. And to be fair, they're not the only ones mining your data, Facebook is at it too, but Google has placed itself so it has access to EVERYTHING you do - your email, your pictures, people you talk to - all I'm waiting for is a tapped version of Skype. Actually, why not give them an ECHELON and CARNIVORE feed too?
Google has an excellent opportunity in Switzerland to prove they can do it right - if they convince the Swiss the rest of Europe will be a walk in the park. But they sure as hell have to start.
Google has good products so they should not need to invade privacy, yet they do. Microsoft had the market and didn't need to fight dirty, yet it did, even with enthusiasm. A bit of self restraint would go a long way, yet that is wholly absent, instead you get, well, BS. Strange parallels..
Oh, for the record, I'm not paid by MS and I haven only recently heard they seem to be campaigning against Google. Well, I think they ought to clean their own yard first - and try to match the innovation Google has offered over the years. But that doesn't excuse Google.
I *want* Google to do things right because I would like to use those services too. But any doctor, for instance, using Google at present will violate HIPAA. Any attorney emailing to a Google address may be violating client privilege. Not good. That way the NSA will never get planet wide coverage. Tsk tsk.
Look, stop the semantics lesson. I'm getting sic of it. :-)
"I think that is just mean to align with the side of the street"
You may want to just spend 5 seconds trying it out, then you don't have to "assume" anything. You will see it pops up a magnifying glass. There is IMHO zero need for that. Nil. I cannot see anything positive coming from that.
It's not about "the worst thing that could happen", it's about "least impact on personal lives". I don't know where you live so this may come as a shock, but privacy is actually a fundamental human right:
Article 12
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
But it's Google. So that's alright then? Just because their marketing people are better at appearing even handed?
Nope..
What Google has done is the equivalent of putting your name somewhere in Yellow Pages, but not telling you under which category. You won't find it unless you put a lot of effort in, so that's going to be a fun one to explain when you're under "Red Light district, men" and your boss finds it..
But this is actually minor stuff. Google have done something else that far out-creeps the non-masked faces. Did you notice Google Streetview specifically ENCOURAGES you to zoom in on people's windows? No? Try it, pick any street and move the mouse over the window - see what happens. WTF?
I would really, really, like to see how they explain that one away as protecting privacy.
Google should maybe, just maybe, start thinking a little bit less like an outsourced arm of the NSA, and consider that not every country has the same destructive attitude to privacy.
"OWA works on Firefox, too."
Yes, but not as well thanks to MS-only extensions. And working with anyone's calender but your own isn't something I worked out when I needed it (didn't spend too much time on it, though - just called the guy :-).
AFAIK, Google publishing pictures with people on without their permission for commercial gain is a breach of privacy laws in various countries (IANAL, so I may have this wrong), so it's putting the world upside down to help people going after the abuse Google themselves have enabled.
Sorry, no win.
I'm not even worried about the contact lens floating - how are you going to cable this? It needs power, and unless someone simultaneously invents a saline based generator you'll need to connect it somewhere.
I'll be really impressed if they solve that, so far it's not even interesting..
I must admit I actually admired his tenacity, grin. I myself have occasionally the attention span of a hamster on speed :-).