Some people tried to take a photo with their iPhone 5 of him leaving Apple headquarters but there was a huge purple flare over most of it so you can't even tell who it is. They must have been holding it wrong or the sun in that part of the US actually is purple.
Silicon Valley resident here with a helpful local geography lesson.
Around here, Apple Headquarters is in Cupertino, Sun was in Santa Clara, and "All Things Purple" (Yahoo) is in Sunnyvale.
It seemed very fitting that the "business" icon for this story is a headless suit, until I remembered that directors in Cupertino don't wear suits. With just about any other company this would have been perfect. We need a headless black turtleneck for future stories.
The prospect of finding an alien civilization that uses hairspray is not very good, given that Little Green Men rarely have hair in Hollywood or Roswell. However, CFCs are less likely to be an indicator of hairspray than plastic foam, circuit board manufacture, Star Trek-esque hypospray propellent, refrigerators or air conditioning. The NY Times just ran an article about how we're still venting CFCs from home central air units in the U.S., over 20 years after the big marketing push to eliminate them.
Here's the PDF of the petition to deny News Corp's renewal of TV broadcasting licenses in the DC and Baltimore markets, based on its behavior in the UK.
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
Oh, Fox will cover it... Via The Simpsons. There is a provision in the contract that specifies the Fox network may not interfere with the show's content. And it results in awkward things being broadcast by Fox, like this (from Wikipedia):
The Simpsons also often includes self-referential humor. The most common form is jokes about Fox Broadcasting. For example, the episode "She Used to Be My Girl" included a scene in which a Fox News Channel van drove down the street while displaying a large "Bush Cheney 2004" banner and playing Queen's "We Are the Champions", in reference to the 2004 presidential election.
I'm sure many slashdotters could cite even more awkward examples of The Simpsons poking the Fox bear.
If you block the psychopaths with the goal of blocking people who are attracted to money, status and power, who will be left to run the corporations? Corporations are set up to attract people who are attracted to those things... It's an incentive system. If you disqualify people who want those things, then all you really have left are the INTJs, also known as the "mastermind" personality type:
Although they are highly capable leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once they take charge, however, they are thoroughgoing pragmatists. Masterminds are certain that efficiency is indispensable in a well-run organization, and if they encounter inefficiency -- any waste of human and material resources -- they are quick to realign operations and reassign personnel. Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don't, aren't, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency.
By definition, INTJs do not want power. They want results and efficiency. If they take power, they try to get out from under it as soon as they can. But do you really want to replace the psychopaths with masterminds? The only group whose personality type is usually preceded by the adjective "evil?" Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
You can't guarantee that you've erased all data about a person unless there is a unique identifier attached to their data. Otherwise, you could plausibly say, "we didn't know that browsing history was referring to John Doe."
So the "right to be forgotten" carries the risk of inviting the requirement that you be tracked more closely before you are forgotten. It's a little bit like being told you have to provide your DNA so the authorities can be sure you aren't the criminal they're looking for – and of course they'll destroy the data afterward.
Advertisers and "big data" will love this. In the short term, they can complain about how much it's going to cost them to do this. The bureaucrats and the public will assume they've scored a victory because of the complaining, and they might even give the companies a tax break or subsidy to offset these costs. People let their guard down, thinking they have more control over their data, which means they're exposing more information. Meanwhile, the corporations have a government mandate and possibly even funding to do what they've always wanted: tie everything together to identify you as an individual and get a complete picture of you.
When the companies are told to forget you, they will say they are complying, but many companies will find a way around it, like selling a copy of your data to an off-shore subsidiary that they own.
Didn't Fox already try this? A reality show that was allegedly about some kid named John Connor and all the problems he had with his unusual family, but mostly about a robot in a miniskirt, or a "cybernetic organism with hyper-alloy combat chassis in a miniskirt," that boxes other robots without messing its hair up. There seemed to be a bug in the programming that invariably caused the robots to stop boxing and begin throwing each other through walls. Often this would be followed by one or both being hit with motor vehicles moving at high speed. Perhaps SyFy has fixed this problem?
He did break down and tell his family. "I remember at the dinner table with great excitement explaining to my wife, Susan, and my daughter, Bethany, what it was we were doing," says Zare. And then he experienced something many parents can relate to when talking to their kids.
"Bethany looked at me and said, 'pass the ketchup.' So, not everybody was as excited as I was," he says.
He told his family what he can't yet tell the world, and his daughter's reaction was, "pass the ketchup." So the discovery must be pretty bland.
Now Congress will be reluctant to approve funding of further missions to Mars because all the fashion mags are telling voters that Mars is fattening and unsuitable for the lactose-intolerant, diabetics, and people with egg and soy allergies. Fantastic. You've just set the space program back 50 years.
Somehow in my hunt for the original source material I didn't finish typing my second sentence. What I meant to type was
...in the third paragraph she quotes one of the authors of the original article in Nature saying "We administered these particles to animals who have a disease very similar to relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis."
She contradicts herself in the first three paragraphs of the article. First she says they've stopped MS, then she says they've stopped a disease very similar to MS.
The article in "Medical News Today" reads like the stuff I used to get from freshman journalism students, not like a professionally-written article. In the first paragraph the article claims managed to halt MS in mice, but then in the third paragraph she quotes one of the authors of the original article in Nature (behind a paywall so we can't read what it actually says unless someone here has a subscription or wants to pay $32). The second paragraph, which should be giving you more information about the subject of the article, throws so much titular crap at you it's hard to figure out who she's talking about, or what relation they have to the work that's being discussed:
Corresponding author Stephen Miller is the Judy Gugenheim Research Professor of Microbiology-Immunology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago in the US. He says in a statement:
It reads more like a transcript of a TV news segment. When you're watching TV they throw these titles at you before the person says anything to give them credibility, so you won't even notice that they never told you whether this guy actually had anything to do with the research. It doesn't work in print because people have the time to read it and realize she's not telling us key info.
The nanoparticles and Miller and colleagues used are made of a polymer called Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLG), which...
The nanoparticles and Miller and colleagues? What? And why are random paragraphs in bold? As you scroll through the article there are four different paragraphs that are in bold for no apparent reason. Does she edit her work or just churn it out and post it?
Slashdot editors should start giving articles from Medical News Today more scrutiny. It seems like it's an office with about 5 people who pay this Catharine Paddock PhD to summarize articles in paywalled journals to drive advertising dollars. The other employees are two CEOs, a marketing director and a "Web Manager." Their other businesses are a database of hospitals, a medical abbreviation glossary, and a medical site ad service. Paddock's PhD is in "Business Administration." Summarizing the paywalled articles to raise awareness is fine, but she seems to be their only author and she can't get her facts straight. If she's contradicting herself in the first three paragraphs and we can't read the source material to verify, then reading MNT articles does nothing but drive ad dollars for MNT. Wait for some more reputable source to sum up the paywalled article and link to that instead.
Wireless dealer, computer repair, popcorn, candy, soda, chips, sweets, fortune cookies, designer fragrances, tons of accessories, DVDs... Sounds like the checkout area of a Fry's Electronics.
Intuit was sued by the DOJ before for this, and along with Apple, Google, Intel and Pixar, reached a settlement with DOJ and agreed in 2010 to stop doing this. Of course, TFA says the collusion in question took place from 2006 to 2009, so I'm thinking they've already covered this. Unless they kept their collusion with eBay a secret at the time, so it's not covered by the settlement, and now DOJ is going to kick them in the pants for not coming clean about all of their illegal activities and partners. My guess is that now DOJ is going to be on a fishing expedition to find out what other collusion Intuit was hiding.
TFA is a little thin. For those of you just joining us (stares pointedly at Intuit and Ebay, with a glance at HP), it's called "collusion."
Collusion
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.
Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place.
Also known as the opposite of competition, or incompatible with a competitive environment, or simply "anti-competitive."
To put things in perspective... Bimbo is the world's largest baking company you've probably never heard of, but probably buy products from. They've been buying up established regional brands for years. Arnold, Boboli, Entenmann's, Orowheat, Sara Lee, Thomas (the English muffin brand), Wonder and a lot of others.
They have a lot of bakery outlet shops,where you can buy these brands of baked goods for next to nothing about a week before their expiration date. When I first became aware of them I was a little surprised by the name ("Really? Someone in marketing thought this was a good name for a company that makes bread and cookies?"), but it turns out the word does not have the offensive connotation in Spanish that it does in English. from Wikipedia:
The name "Bimbo" has no specific meaning in Spanish; thus, the name has not caused significant uproar as it would in the United States, where the word "bimbo" has a negative connotation. The official theory believes that the name Bimbo, coined in 1945 when the company was rebranded from its previous name, Super Pan S.A., is the mixing of the words "bingo" and "Bambi".[4] In addition, the innocent, childlike name went well with the brand image they wanted to build.
Citing high labor and rising health care costs, increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods...
Translation: we have finally reached the point where our customers know better than to buy our products, and the health problems caused by our products have pushed our health care costs to unsustainable levels.
I look forward to the day when the tobacco industry releases a statement like this.
In other news, Verizon customer John Doe has declared his Web browsing history and related Internet activity to be a "work of art" created by him and subject to copyright protection. On Friday he announced that any company caught illegally downloading, storing or sharing his copyrighted work will be subject to throttling: a process by which he reduces his payments for their services to pennies per day.
Why isn't this a two-way street? If the consumer did this, Verizon would simply say he had not paid what he owed in full. But here Verizon is unilaterally deciding not to provide the service in full. Perhaps the consumer should have the right to charge the company late fees for services not rendered in full.
Likely they have a buyer(s) possibly overseas that's willing to take them as we found on Reddit AMA there are a few countries where Apple cannot sell except through certain middleman channels.
You mean we might end up seeing those iPad minis used as guidance systems for Iran's ICBMs? That would be even better than Stuxnet. They run iOS6 with Apple Maps.
Slashdot Mirror
Some people tried to take a photo with their iPhone 5 of him leaving Apple headquarters but there was a huge purple flare over most of it so you can't even tell who it is. They must have been holding it wrong or the sun in that part of the US actually is purple.
Silicon Valley resident here with a helpful local geography lesson.
Around here, Apple Headquarters is in Cupertino, Sun was in Santa Clara, and "All Things Purple" (Yahoo) is in Sunnyvale.
"Apple Axes Head..."
It seemed very fitting that the "business" icon for this story is a headless suit, until I remembered that directors in Cupertino don't wear suits. With just about any other company this would have been perfect. We need a headless black turtleneck for future stories.
Chocolatey = Chocolate, Sort of...
Onity = On It, Sort of...
The prospect of finding an alien civilization that uses hairspray is not very good, given that Little Green Men rarely have hair in Hollywood or Roswell. However, CFCs are less likely to be an indicator of hairspray than plastic foam, circuit board manufacture, Star Trek-esque hypospray propellent, refrigerators or air conditioning. The NY Times just ran an article about how we're still venting CFCs from home central air units in the U.S., over 20 years after the big marketing push to eliminate them.
Here's the PDF of the petition to deny News Corp's renewal of TV broadcasting licenses in the DC and Baltimore markets, based on its behavior in the UK.
You know who is not going to be covering this story.
Oh, Fox will cover it... Via The Simpsons. There is a provision in the contract that specifies the Fox network may not interfere with the show's content. And it results in awkward things being broadcast by Fox, like this (from Wikipedia):
The Simpsons also often includes self-referential humor. The most common form is jokes about Fox Broadcasting. For example, the episode "She Used to Be My Girl" included a scene in which a Fox News Channel van drove down the street while displaying a large "Bush Cheney 2004" banner and playing Queen's "We Are the Champions", in reference to the 2004 presidential election.
I'm sure many slashdotters could cite even more awkward examples of The Simpsons poking the Fox bear.
Although they are highly capable leaders, Masterminds are not at all eager to take command, preferring to stay in the background until others demonstrate their inability to lead. Once they take charge, however, they are thoroughgoing pragmatists. Masterminds are certain that efficiency is indispensable in a well-run organization, and if they encounter inefficiency -- any waste of human and material resources -- they are quick to realign operations and reassign personnel. Masterminds do not feel bound by established rules and procedures, and traditional authority does not impress them, nor do slogans or catchwords. Only ideas that make sense to them are adopted; those that don't, aren't, no matter who thought of them. Remember, their aim is always maximum efficiency.
By definition, INTJs do not want power. They want results and efficiency. If they take power, they try to get out from under it as soon as they can. But do you really want to replace the psychopaths with masterminds? The only group whose personality type is usually preceded by the adjective "evil?" Doesn't sound like a good plan to me.
Stands on soap box
I vote we keep the voting system! What do you mean I can't vote on it?
Seems as though the patent is legit.
You don't think it's fabricated? That's certainly odd. I thought the plaintiff was known for its fabrication reputation.
You can't guarantee that you've erased all data about a person unless there is a unique identifier attached to their data. Otherwise, you could plausibly say, "we didn't know that browsing history was referring to John Doe."
So the "right to be forgotten" carries the risk of inviting the requirement that you be tracked more closely before you are forgotten. It's a little bit like being told you have to provide your DNA so the authorities can be sure you aren't the criminal they're looking for – and of course they'll destroy the data afterward.
Advertisers and "big data" will love this. In the short term, they can complain about how much it's going to cost them to do this. The bureaucrats and the public will assume they've scored a victory because of the complaining, and they might even give the companies a tax break or subsidy to offset these costs. People let their guard down, thinking they have more control over their data, which means they're exposing more information. Meanwhile, the corporations have a government mandate and possibly even funding to do what they've always wanted: tie everything together to identify you as an individual and get a complete picture of you.
When the companies are told to forget you, they will say they are complying, but many companies will find a way around it, like selling a copy of your data to an off-shore subsidiary that they own.
Didn't Fox already try this? A reality show that was allegedly about some kid named John Connor and all the problems he had with his unusual family, but mostly about a robot in a miniskirt, or a "cybernetic organism with hyper-alloy combat chassis in a miniskirt," that boxes other robots without messing its hair up. There seemed to be a bug in the programming that invariably caused the robots to stop boxing and begin throwing each other through walls. Often this would be followed by one or both being hit with motor vehicles moving at high speed. Perhaps SyFy has fixed this problem?
He did break down and tell his family. "I remember at the dinner table with great excitement explaining to my wife, Susan, and my daughter, Bethany, what it was we were doing," says Zare. And then he experienced something many parents can relate to when talking to their kids.
"Bethany looked at me and said, 'pass the ketchup.' So, not everybody was as excited as I was," he says.
He told his family what he can't yet tell the world, and his daughter's reaction was, "pass the ketchup." So the discovery must be pretty bland.
Now Congress will be reluctant to approve funding of further missions to Mars because all the fashion mags are telling voters that Mars is fattening and unsuitable for the lactose-intolerant, diabetics, and people with egg and soy allergies. Fantastic. You've just set the space program back 50 years.
...in the third paragraph she quotes one of the authors of the original article in Nature saying "We administered these particles to animals who have a disease very similar to relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis."
She contradicts herself in the first three paragraphs of the article. First she says they've stopped MS, then she says they've stopped a disease very similar to MS.
Corresponding author Stephen Miller is the Judy Gugenheim Research Professor of Microbiology-Immunology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine in Chicago in the US. He says in a statement:
It reads more like a transcript of a TV news segment. When you're watching TV they throw these titles at you before the person says anything to give them credibility, so you won't even notice that they never told you whether this guy actually had anything to do with the research. It doesn't work in print because people have the time to read it and realize she's not telling us key info.
The nanoparticles and Miller and colleagues used are made of a polymer called Poly(lactide-co-glycolide) (PLG), which...
The nanoparticles and Miller and colleagues? What? And why are random paragraphs in bold? As you scroll through the article there are four different paragraphs that are in bold for no apparent reason. Does she edit her work or just churn it out and post it?
Slashdot editors should start giving articles from Medical News Today more scrutiny. It seems like it's an office with about 5 people who pay this Catharine Paddock PhD to summarize articles in paywalled journals to drive advertising dollars. The other employees are two CEOs, a marketing director and a "Web Manager." Their other businesses are a database of hospitals, a medical abbreviation glossary, and a medical site ad service. Paddock's PhD is in "Business Administration." Summarizing the paywalled articles to raise awareness is fine, but she seems to be their only author and she can't get her facts straight. If she's contradicting herself in the first three paragraphs and we can't read the source material to verify, then reading MNT articles does nothing but drive ad dollars for MNT. Wait for some more reputable source to sum up the paywalled article and link to that instead.
Wireless dealer, computer repair, popcorn, candy, soda, chips, sweets, fortune cookies, designer fragrances, tons of accessories, DVDs... Sounds like the checkout area of a Fry's Electronics.
It's only funny and insightful if "Paul" works for both Intuit and eBay writing the verbiage for anti-competitive agreements.
Or how about non-compete clauses in general?
IANAL, but last I heard it varies by state. There's a good discussion of it here, but the article is 4 years old.
Intuit was sued by the DOJ before for this, and along with Apple, Google, Intel and Pixar, reached a settlement with DOJ and agreed in 2010 to stop doing this. Of course, TFA says the collusion in question took place from 2006 to 2009, so I'm thinking they've already covered this. Unless they kept their collusion with eBay a secret at the time, so it's not covered by the settlement, and now DOJ is going to kick them in the pants for not coming clean about all of their illegal activities and partners. My guess is that now DOJ is going to be on a fishing expedition to find out what other collusion Intuit was hiding.
Collusion
Collusion is an agreement between two or more persons, sometimes illegal and therefore secretive, to limit open competition by deceiving, misleading, or defrauding others of their legal rights, or to obtain an objective forbidden by law typically by defrauding or gaining an unfair advantage. It is an agreement among firms to divide the market, set prices, or limit production. It can involve "wage fixing, kickbacks, or misrepresenting the independence of the relationship between the colluding parties". In legal terms, all acts affected by collusion are considered void.
Collusion is largely illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU due to competition/antitrust law, but implicit collusion in the form of price leadership and tacit understandings still takes place.
Also known as the opposite of competition, or incompatible with a competitive environment, or simply "anti-competitive."
By "Wonder" do you mean Wonder Bread? That was a Hostess brand.
In the U.S., yes, but Bimbo owns Wonder Bread in Mexico.
They have a lot of bakery outlet shops,where you can buy these brands of baked goods for next to nothing about a week before their expiration date. When I first became aware of them I was a little surprised by the name ("Really? Someone in marketing thought this was a good name for a company that makes bread and cookies?"), but it turns out the word does not have the offensive connotation in Spanish that it does in English. from Wikipedia:
The name "Bimbo" has no specific meaning in Spanish; thus, the name has not caused significant uproar as it would in the United States, where the word "bimbo" has a negative connotation. The official theory believes that the name Bimbo, coined in 1945 when the company was rebranded from its previous name, Super Pan S.A., is the mixing of the words "bingo" and "Bambi".[4] In addition, the innocent, childlike name went well with the brand image they wanted to build.
Citing high labor and rising health care costs, increasing competition and growing consumer awareness of healthy foods...
Translation: we have finally reached the point where our customers know better than to buy our products, and the health problems caused by our products have pushed our health care costs to unsustainable levels.
I look forward to the day when the tobacco industry releases a statement like this.
In other news, Verizon customer John Doe has declared his Web browsing history and related Internet activity to be a "work of art" created by him and subject to copyright protection. On Friday he announced that any company caught illegally downloading, storing or sharing his copyrighted work will be subject to throttling: a process by which he reduces his payments for their services to pennies per day.
Why isn't this a two-way street? If the consumer did this, Verizon would simply say he had not paid what he owed in full. But here Verizon is unilaterally deciding not to provide the service in full. Perhaps the consumer should have the right to charge the company late fees for services not rendered in full.
Likely they have a buyer(s) possibly overseas that's willing to take them as we found on Reddit AMA there are a few countries where Apple cannot sell except through certain middleman channels.
You mean we might end up seeing those iPad minis used as guidance systems for Iran's ICBMs? That would be even better than Stuxnet. They run iOS6 with Apple Maps.