After you have some unpleasant experience -- break up with your girlfriend, argument with your boss -- just walk into another room and start doing something else
we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?
Read the full text of the Fair Labor Act if you want to get a sense of just how deep down the rabbit hole government regulations go. I'm sure we all rest easy at night knowing that people making sugar beet molasses do not get overtime pay.
The provisions of section 207 of this title shall not apply for a period or periods of not more than fourteen workweeks in the aggregate in any period of fifty-two consecutive weeks to any employee who (1) is engaged in the processing of sugar beets, sugar beet molasses, or sugar cane into sugar (other than refined sugar) or syrup;
This is the key point. Compliance is a "systematic solution" -- a process that leverages IT architecture, coding practices, and human behavior to meet a set of standards.
Dropbox is about backups and disaster recovery. It's a terrific service for SMBs who are worried that important files might get damaged, corrupted, lost, or stolen. They do NOT claim to securely store, they only claim to securely communicate. You want secure storage, you have to encrypt the file that gets backed-up on Dropbox yourself.
So, no, Dropbox is not your solution to PCI, SOX, or HIPPA. All of those standards require a whole heckuva lot more that just using a great online backup solution. The real question ought to be why anyone even remotely would think that Dropbox is providing solutions in this space. They're either trying to cast some good ol' FUD because they work for the competition, or they're just plain incompetent.
To say that Evernote "kicks butt" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? OneNote has the edge in organization (sections, tags); Evernote has the edge in cross-platform (web, mobile). Personally, I don't use either product, I use Zim because I need extreme cross-platform support. I only mentioned OneNote because that's an MS product, as is Courier.
What honestly could the Courier have done you cannot do with an iPad and the right application?
Take a look at http://youtu.be/GlpftPSuXe4 The big difference is that everything in the Courier is oriented towards keeping a journal of your content, whereas everything in the iPad is oriented towards presenting you with someone else's content.
Any by "orientation", I mean the whole panoply of user interaction, presentation, persistence, cataloging, etc.
for a content-creation-oriented user interface. The iPad is abysmal at content creation. Maybe MS could take its Courier ideas and use it to make a really spectacular, touch-based version of OneNote that could run on existing tablets -- any OS, not limited to Windows. Keep the split-screen functionality, just do it in software, not hardware. I'd buy it.
"And you are designed by millions of years of evolution..."
A great example of some of the difficulties of stating evolutionary theory fairly. You can't say that evolution "designed" something, because evolution is a response to external conditions that affect reproduction. It is a weeding-out process. Thus, you'd have to say something like, "Over millions of years of evolution, some external sound source, whose effect on people whose sensitivity to sound was either narrower or broader than today, and which resulted in those people not reproducing at the same rate as today, has resulted in a selection of people who have a painful reaction to the sound of fingernails on chalkboards."
And if you can "prove" that line of reasoning, you are a better man than I. Evolution, fairly stated, requires a pretty significant level of faith.
This report has not been peer-reviewed, and no one should draw any conclusions yet. The "pre-publication" of this report is reportedly the work of the report's primary author; none of the co-authors were consulted. The Daily Mail is reporting that one of the co-authors, Prof Judith Curry, has even begun to distance herself from the report. I predict that nothing good will come of this pre-publishing gambit; this entire approach will confuse rather than clarify, and real science will bear yet another black mark.
Instead of recording just the actors live and having to rely on CG to recreate everything else, with this we could film all physical objects live, and decorate it with CG, like an updated form of rotoscoping. I, for one, would welcome the demise of green-screen films. CG is still unconvincing, no matter how much money they keep spending on it. I still notice it. every. single. time.
A interesting response, esp. on the topic of people not being informed enough to make a good decision. I think we've all been involved in coding projects that were designed by committee, and know how that turned out.
However, we can't really trust only the people who know enough, because ethics is not a function of knowledge. Consensus forces a group morality on all actors, and that is really its primary benefit. No one is going to let anyone else rip the group off.
So, isn't it remarkable that our Founders understood that power must be divided, that representation must be balanced between pure democracy and elite rule, and that by building in the possibility of perpetual change in leadership, they were guaranteeing that change would happen peacefully, generally.
It is inappropriate to draw any conclusions from this research because it has not yet been peer reviewed. Watts of wattsupwiththat.com fame was shown a draft, and found some problems with the study, specifically with the selection of weather siting data. No doubt there will be other issues that need to be corrected, that's the whole point of having peer reviews. Everybody wants to skip to the end, but we need to let the process work.
You'd think that the/. crowd would be a little more sophisticated about this kind of thing than the average MSM reader, but apparently not in this case, given the comments I've read thus far.
There's nothing wrong with making money with money. I was very happy that someone was willing to lend me hundreds of thousands of dollars so I could buy a decent house for my growing family. I paid back every cent with interest 11 years early, and certainly never felt "enslaved". Of course I expected to pay for the privilege of using someone else's money, that's only fair. When I retire and the table is turned, I'll expect a return on the decades of saving and skimping I put in.
Very interesting. As a poll worker, however, I am amazed that people feel they have to sleep in the streets to effect change. The number of people who vote in local elections is just a tiny fraction of those who vote in the big national elections. But it's in the local elections where the slate is chosen -- who gets on the big ballot, and who does not. If just 5% more people turned out to vote, we'd have radically different politicians to choose from.
- If you get married, learn to live on one income.
- If you do have a second income, use it to pay down debt as aggressively as you can, then to save up for big-ticket items such as a down-payment on a house, a used car, retirement, etc.
- If you plan to have children, don't count on a second income until the youngest is of school age. It's a full-time job to care for very young children. It makes sense to maintain business contacts, go to professional events, and do short contract work to keep your resume current, just don't count on the income. Take care of the kids first, then ease back into work -- and apply that extra income to getting debt-free.
- Don't spend a lot of money on "premiere" vacations while kids are very young. They won't remember any of it when they get older, and it's incredibly stressful on the whole family. Take the kids to the great outdoors instead. National and state parks are amazingly good vacations, and cheap, too.
- Invest early. It takes decades to build up a nest egg. The goal is to have a big enough nest egg so you can live 2/3 off the interest income when you retire, the other 1/3 from retirement insurance plans such as Social Security.
OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume that government-run healthcare is less expensive. Is the principle that anything the government can do more cheaply ought to be government-run? How is this a justification for giving up freedom of choice?
I suppose the government could mandate that we all eat the same healthy, nutritious meals every day. The government could buy, process, and distribute the food. It would be far cheaper than letting people choose between McDonalds or Ruth Chris Steak House, and healthier, too.
I suppose the government could mandate that we all wear the same types of clothes. It's so expensive letting people have too many choices. If we all wore the basic jumpsuit design, like the military does, it would undoubtedly be cheaper.
I don't think you're arguing to live in that kind of world. I don't think anybody wants to live in that kind of world. All I'm saying is that that is the logical direction we'll be taking if the government is allowed to take over our healthcare.
Good job trying to explain the empirical aspects of the study of religious works. http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm has some good, practical advice about how to interpret the Bible.
Why have one-size-fits-all healthcare? That'd be like having one OS, or one brand of clothing, or one chain of restaurants, or one make of car. We don't ask government to manage our food purchases, or where we choose to live, or what jobs we work at. Why this fascination with government-run healthcare?
I am a poll worker in Virginia. If you haven't tried to run an election, you're probably thinking that paper is the obvious answer. Just count the votes! How hard can it be?
Paper is a horrible medium for counting things. Paper gets lost. It gets defaced. It can become illegible ("hanging" chads anyone?). It can be crumpled, torn, shredded, soaked, burned, stuffed, and stuck to other pieces of paper. Bottom line, voters prefer electronic voting equipment because it is easier and simpler to use. (See this study from Rice University.) Poll workers prefer electronic voting because it much more reliable, and far easier to manage effectively.
There's a reason banks don't use paper receipts and hand-written ledger books anymore. Those same reasons apply to running elections. Automation is great.
The MITM attack scenario outlined in the parent article requires that someone gain physical access to the voting machine not once but twice -- both before and after the election. That's a very high hurdle! Our voting machines are under lock and key. The cases are sealed. We check the serial numbers and write them down. We open and close the cases in the open. The courts keep a record of the serial numbers.
If your scenario is that I have to collude with an entire staff of volunteer poll workers, or I have to corrupt an entire office of election, or I have to corrupt the local Court, then getting into the machines is the least of your worries. Granted, physical security is important, and that's why we have procedures such as serialized seals.
Slashdot Mirror
. OK, which Satanic US corporation has the contract to deliver this technology and support it?
Prove it, then. Is your faith any better than theirs?
After you have some unpleasant experience -- break up with your girlfriend, argument with your boss -- just walk into another room and start doing something else
we wouldn't need AdBlock at all. For example, who complains about ads on the Google search page? The ads are highly relevant, and largely unobtrusive. If advertisers were smarter, they'd go one step beyond Google and give the consumer direct control of their ad placement. I don't mind ads when I'm buying, but when I'm not, I want them out of the way. Sounds like a UI problem to me. How hard would it be to solve?
Read the full text of the Fair Labor Act if you want to get a sense of just how deep down the rabbit hole government regulations go. I'm sure we all rest easy at night knowing that people making sugar beet molasses do not get overtime pay.
This is the key point. Compliance is a "systematic solution" -- a process that leverages IT architecture, coding practices, and human behavior to meet a set of standards.
I believe that this is exactly the kind of scenario that the new "team" version of Dropbox is aimed at fixing.
Dropbox is about backups and disaster recovery. It's a terrific service for SMBs who are worried that important files might get damaged, corrupted, lost, or stolen. They do NOT claim to securely store, they only claim to securely communicate. You want secure storage, you have to encrypt the file that gets backed-up on Dropbox yourself.
So, no, Dropbox is not your solution to PCI, SOX, or HIPPA. All of those standards require a whole heckuva lot more that just using a great online backup solution. The real question ought to be why anyone even remotely would think that Dropbox is providing solutions in this space. They're either trying to cast some good ol' FUD because they work for the competition, or they're just plain incompetent.
To say that Evernote "kicks butt" is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? OneNote has the edge in organization (sections, tags); Evernote has the edge in cross-platform (web, mobile). Personally, I don't use either product, I use Zim because I need extreme cross-platform support. I only mentioned OneNote because that's an MS product, as is Courier.
Take a look at http://youtu.be/GlpftPSuXe4 The big difference is that everything in the Courier is oriented towards keeping a journal of your content, whereas everything in the iPad is oriented towards presenting you with someone else's content.
Any by "orientation", I mean the whole panoply of user interaction, presentation, persistence, cataloging, etc.
for a content-creation-oriented user interface. The iPad is abysmal at content creation. Maybe MS could take its Courier ideas and use it to make a really spectacular, touch-based version of OneNote that could run on existing tablets -- any OS, not limited to Windows. Keep the split-screen functionality, just do it in software, not hardware. I'd buy it.
"And you are designed by millions of years of evolution ..."
A great example of some of the difficulties of stating evolutionary theory fairly. You can't say that evolution "designed" something, because evolution is a response to external conditions that affect reproduction. It is a weeding-out process. Thus, you'd have to say something like, "Over millions of years of evolution, some external sound source, whose effect on people whose sensitivity to sound was either narrower or broader than today, and which resulted in those people not reproducing at the same rate as today, has resulted in a selection of people who have a painful reaction to the sound of fingernails on chalkboards."
And if you can "prove" that line of reasoning, you are a better man than I. Evolution, fairly stated, requires a pretty significant level of faith.
This report has not been peer-reviewed, and no one should draw any conclusions yet. The "pre-publication" of this report is reportedly the work of the report's primary author; none of the co-authors were consulted. The Daily Mail is reporting that one of the co-authors, Prof Judith Curry, has even begun to distance herself from the report. I predict that nothing good will come of this pre-publishing gambit; this entire approach will confuse rather than clarify, and real science will bear yet another black mark.
All without external power! Using only gravity!
Instead of recording just the actors live and having to rely on CG to recreate everything else, with this we could film all physical objects live, and decorate it with CG, like an updated form of rotoscoping. I, for one, would welcome the demise of green-screen films. CG is still unconvincing, no matter how much money they keep spending on it. I still notice it. every. single. time.
A interesting response, esp. on the topic of people not being informed enough to make a good decision. I think we've all been involved in coding projects that were designed by committee, and know how that turned out.
However, we can't really trust only the people who know enough, because ethics is not a function of knowledge. Consensus forces a group morality on all actors, and that is really its primary benefit. No one is going to let anyone else rip the group off.
So, isn't it remarkable that our Founders understood that power must be divided, that representation must be balanced between pure democracy and elite rule, and that by building in the possibility of perpetual change in leadership, they were guaranteeing that change would happen peacefully, generally.
Some guys, those founders.
The process I'm referring to is to peer-review this particular study. We're not "past" that, it hasn't even happened yet.
It is inappropriate to draw any conclusions from this research because it has not yet been peer reviewed. Watts of wattsupwiththat.com fame was shown a draft, and found some problems with the study, specifically with the selection of weather siting data. No doubt there will be other issues that need to be corrected, that's the whole point of having peer reviews. Everybody wants to skip to the end, but we need to let the process work.
You'd think that the /. crowd would be a little more sophisticated about this kind of thing than the average MSM reader, but apparently not in this case, given the comments I've read thus far.
There's nothing wrong with making money with money. I was very happy that someone was willing to lend me hundreds of thousands of dollars so I could buy a decent house for my growing family. I paid back every cent with interest 11 years early, and certainly never felt "enslaved". Of course I expected to pay for the privilege of using someone else's money, that's only fair. When I retire and the table is turned, I'll expect a return on the decades of saving and skimping I put in.
Very interesting. As a poll worker, however, I am amazed that people feel they have to sleep in the streets to effect change. The number of people who vote in local elections is just a tiny fraction of those who vote in the big national elections. But it's in the local elections where the slate is chosen -- who gets on the big ballot, and who does not. If just 5% more people turned out to vote, we'd have radically different politicians to choose from.
Very solid advice. I'd add a few more:
- If you get married, learn to live on one income.
- If you do have a second income, use it to pay down debt as aggressively as you can, then to save up for big-ticket items such as a down-payment on a house, a used car, retirement, etc.
- If you plan to have children, don't count on a second income until the youngest is of school age. It's a full-time job to care for very young children. It makes sense to maintain business contacts, go to professional events, and do short contract work to keep your resume current, just don't count on the income. Take care of the kids first, then ease back into work -- and apply that extra income to getting debt-free.
- Don't spend a lot of money on "premiere" vacations while kids are very young. They won't remember any of it when they get older, and it's incredibly stressful on the whole family. Take the kids to the great outdoors instead. National and state parks are amazingly good vacations, and cheap, too.
- Invest early. It takes decades to build up a nest egg. The goal is to have a big enough nest egg so you can live 2/3 off the interest income when you retire, the other 1/3 from retirement insurance plans such as Social Security.
OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume that government-run healthcare is less expensive. Is the principle that anything the government can do more cheaply ought to be government-run? How is this a justification for giving up freedom of choice?
I suppose the government could mandate that we all eat the same healthy, nutritious meals every day. The government could buy, process, and distribute the food. It would be far cheaper than letting people choose between McDonalds or Ruth Chris Steak House, and healthier, too.
I suppose the government could mandate that we all wear the same types of clothes. It's so expensive letting people have too many choices. If we all wore the basic jumpsuit design, like the military does, it would undoubtedly be cheaper.
I don't think you're arguing to live in that kind of world. I don't think anybody wants to live in that kind of world. All I'm saying is that that is the logical direction we'll be taking if the government is allowed to take over our healthcare.
In the name of cost savings, of course.
Good job trying to explain the empirical aspects of the study of religious works. http://bible-truth.org/Principles.htm has some good, practical advice about how to interpret the Bible.
Why have one-size-fits-all healthcare? That'd be like having one OS, or one brand of clothing, or one chain of restaurants, or one make of car. We don't ask government to manage our food purchases, or where we choose to live, or what jobs we work at. Why this fascination with government-run healthcare?
I am a poll worker in Virginia. If you haven't tried to run an election, you're probably thinking that paper is the obvious answer. Just count the votes! How hard can it be?
Paper is a horrible medium for counting things. Paper gets lost. It gets defaced. It can become illegible ("hanging" chads anyone?). It can be crumpled, torn, shredded, soaked, burned, stuffed, and stuck to other pieces of paper. Bottom line, voters prefer electronic voting equipment because it is easier and simpler to use. (See this study from Rice University.) Poll workers prefer electronic voting because it much more reliable, and far easier to manage effectively.
There's a reason banks don't use paper receipts and hand-written ledger books anymore. Those same reasons apply to running elections. Automation is great.
The MITM attack scenario outlined in the parent article requires that someone gain physical access to the voting machine not once but twice -- both before and after the election. That's a very high hurdle! Our voting machines are under lock and key. The cases are sealed. We check the serial numbers and write them down. We open and close the cases in the open. The courts keep a record of the serial numbers.
If your scenario is that I have to collude with an entire staff of volunteer poll workers, or I have to corrupt an entire office of election, or I have to corrupt the local Court, then getting into the machines is the least of your worries. Granted, physical security is important, and that's why we have procedures such as serialized seals.