Defendants are griping about the battery in hopes of addressing privacy issues.
Google will focus on the battery. Google has lots of opportunities to improve battery life ranging from educating the customer on how to do that for themselves, to providing a beefier battery that offsets the increase abuse by ad data.
Or, Google may offer one free app (with attendant tattle tale stream) as compensation.
In any case, Google will focus on the battery and will avoid proprietary business practices as irrelevant.
... before my ancestors decided to revolt, but I think there could be some wiggle room for litigation here. (Appreciate that I don't know British law, so I'm applying some American stuff here).
It's sorta like the signs in the parking lot. "Surveillance Cameras In Use," and then a lawyer files a request for footage in a case, and danged if the cameras don't work.
In the matter we have here, what if a kid navigates to a porn site and momma finds out?
The scary thought is that the government could get a warrant to confiscate ALL of a suspect's stuff on the grounds that evidence may exist in the defendant's truck, house, place of business, in the form of data that exists anywhere...
To me, the government is saying, "We don't have enough on this guy, so give us everything he's got and maybe we can make a case."
When I was in this man's Navy (US) out on the Big Pond, we used practice depth charges all the time, and that was way back when Moby Dick was a minnow.
We killed 30,000 shrimp one time and, I'm sorry... they deserved it for doing performance art where their echo pattern looked like a submarine. They weren't "a" submarine, but they were submarine.
Anyway, if we can construct punny remarks that amuse the author, I'm certain we could test this idea with small underwater sonic booms and do a surface body count charted against Db to see if we can eliminate, " [Scientists]...aren't sure how the cannons will affect fish and other sea creatures or how any physiological effects on them may impact the fishing industries of the U.S."
If you're programming litigation, you'll have to pick up some legal knowledge. If it's banking, then finance. If it's science, you'll have to be exposed.
But... you don't have to be an expert at anything but programming. The experts do all that stuff. They can spec, but they can't code.
Yeah, my company escorted me out the gate because I was a network jockey and they didn't want me to sabotage the system.
Two days later they're calling me with, "How do we...," and "What's the passwords for...," and "Where are the..."
I offered to respond by email:
"The Firm has made the decision to "right-size" its IT department to better align with strategies going forward. In support of that decision, I know the Firm has retained the very best-of-breed systems analysts and I think we should rely on those superior personnel to figure out what knowledge I departed with. I know you will agree that Firm policy prohibits sensitive communication with non-employees and it is with a spirit of cooperation that I decline to ever speak to any of you ever again."
Slashdot Mirror
See what you've done? No more contractor vetting. All those jobs ...
... I could be pre-approved for head of the NSA.
Defendants are griping about the battery in hopes of addressing privacy issues.
Google will focus on the battery. Google has lots of opportunities to improve battery life ranging from educating the customer on how to do that for themselves, to providing a beefier battery that offsets the increase abuse by ad data.
Or, Google may offer one free app (with attendant tattle tale stream) as compensation.
In any case, Google will focus on the battery and will avoid proprietary business practices as irrelevant.
It's sorta like the signs in the parking lot. "Surveillance Cameras In Use," and then a lawyer files a request for footage in a case, and danged if the cameras don't work.
In the matter we have here, what if a kid navigates to a porn site and momma finds out?
Will the ISP be held accountable?
You've as much as admitted you don't know. I do. Do your homework. I am not your home-schooler.
" ... you moron."
By way of example.
... in litigation.
In court, a person could not use the, "Gee ... I didn't know," defense.
As you mature in your effort to become a credible member of the debate team, you will learn the maxim, "Attack the post and not the poster."
I wish you godspeed in that regard.
Let's do a thought experiment, OK?
Let's look at the criteria that qualifies a person for welfare.
Are you imagining the list with me?
Further, let's imagine an individual who has met that criteria and is on welfare.
Continuing, let's mentally disqualify that person for some reason or other.
So now, the individual is in worse shape than before.
They were on welfare because they qualified, right?
Don't they qualify MORE now?
The only sensible reason to deny welfare or to reduce benefits is if the individual no longer meets some or all the criteria for being on welfare.
This one, in my post:
"At least for the first crossing."
Did you know that undocumented people who come to America are not "illegals?"
At least for the first crossing.
A clue is to look at the punishment: A free ride back to point of origin.
A person who crosses the border again AFTER deportation is:
1.) Doing so illegally
2.) Documented (else how do we know?)
Precisely.
Apparently, some people prefer not to think things through.
If we kicked people off of welfare, they would have fewer resources than they have now.
Those people would then qualify for ... wait for it ... welfare.
... before I was let go.
Amplified parenting is trumped by ear buds.
Good point, because this is a slippery slope.
The scary thought is that the government could get a warrant to confiscate ALL of a suspect's stuff on the grounds that evidence may exist in the defendant's truck, house, place of business, in the form of data that exists anywhere ...
To me, the government is saying, "We don't have enough on this guy, so give us everything he's got and maybe we can make a case."
And maybe not.
You are correct that it's a fishing expedition.
Hell, he walked in and got the stash and fled the country. Manning had already done a similar heist before this.
So, we've got minions with access to sensitive data and can't stop them. The government needs to audit itself ... again.
It does no good to wrap this stuff up in a cloaking device if space cadets can glomp and run.
There's a registry hack that I've applied to Windows XP and I'm getting security updates ...
Meanwhile, those with an IQ higher than asphalt fault no one yet because it's just too early.
Especially a Xerox 7775 copier, printer, fax, email and scan-to-network multifunction.
WHY don't they know the impact?
When I was in this man's Navy (US) out on the Big Pond, we used practice depth charges all the time, and that was way back when Moby Dick was a minnow.
We killed 30,000 shrimp one time and, I'm sorry ... they deserved it for doing performance art where their echo pattern looked like a submarine. They weren't "a" submarine, but they were submarine.
Anyway, if we can construct punny remarks that amuse the author, I'm certain we could test this idea with small underwater sonic booms and do a surface body count charted against Db to see if we can eliminate, " [Scientists] ...aren't sure how the cannons will affect fish and other sea creatures or how any physiological effects on them may impact the fishing industries of the U.S."
... and that's it.
If you're programming litigation, you'll have to pick up some legal knowledge. If it's banking, then finance. If it's science, you'll have to be exposed.
But ... you don't have to be an expert at anything but programming. The experts do all that stuff. They can spec, but they can't code.
... my Candy Crush Saga.
Kinda like Tobias' Managing Your Money.
Yeah, my company escorted me out the gate because I was a network jockey and they didn't want me to sabotage the system.
Two days later they're calling me with, "How do we ...," and "What's the passwords for ...," and "Where are the ..."
I offered to respond by email:
"The Firm has made the decision to "right-size" its IT department to better align with strategies going forward. In support of that decision, I know the Firm has retained the very best-of-breed systems analysts and I think we should rely on those superior personnel to figure out what knowledge I departed with. I know you will agree that Firm policy prohibits sensitive communication with non-employees and it is with a spirit of cooperation that I decline to ever speak to any of you ever again."
And an example would be ...
While your statements are correct, for fair comparison I think we should grant growth predictions to SSC that happened at LHC.