The export of Canadian personal information outside the country is governed by PIPEDA. Google simply doesn't have the right to demand any personal info be sent to their servers outside the country's borders. This is effectively the same legislation that Germany later copied.
True, but Google is under no obligation to provide services to people who don't provide the requested information.
While I don'y like Google's policy, I also don't like any government dictating to a company they must provide services - if Google doesn't like CDN's rules they can leave.
I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a caveat in the law allowing voluntarily providing the information.
To say Apple didnt invent the tablet and then point to Microsoft seems indifference to that toy that Apple released so long ago called the Newton... before Palm..
That "toy", like the later "toy" (the iPad), launched entire new breeds of products. So apparently, you are in the minority in dismissing those groundbreaking products (yes there were other "tablets" before the iPad; but none were more than annoyingly cringeworthy).
But of course, like all haters, you are too pusillanimous to subject your Karma to the drubbing it so richly deserves.
I have a Newton - the second generation. I used the last generation as well. Groundbreaking? Yes. Toys? Also yes - because they always seem to be more promise than actualization, but they were fun to play with. The last generation Newt came out at the same time the PalmPilot was taking hold and WinCE (the best acronym I've seen in a long time) was coming out with clamshells and handhelds. It had a lot more promise than the WinCE machines, but the PalmPilot really showed the way for what a PDA should be. Apple eventually took Palm’s idea and ran with it to create the iPhone while learning from the mistakes made with the Newt.
Calling something a "toy" doesn't dismiss them as not being groundbreaking or influential in planting the seed for far better follow-ons.
IMHO, the best clamshells of the era was the old HP 95/100/etc series and the Psions. Both were really useful as basic laptops for typing and doing small spreadsheet work.
Take a flat tire on a moonless night for instance. While a man is out changing nuts and bolts and doing all manner of screwing on the side of the road, will a woman so much as think to grab a flashlight and help? No.
If he's already doing all manner of screwing on the side of a road, having a women grab a flashlight and do whatever with it would not be necessary or helpful; in fact it could be very painful.
I think some of the battery arrays should be able to pulled out of the car and swapped in with a charged battery array. This process could happen in under a minute.
While it's a compelling solution, there are few obstacles to it becoming commonplace, for example:
As with plugs, you'd need a standard battery. Given manufacturers want to compete on things such as range, a standard battery would remove one area where they could differentiate their product; making it unlikely.
You'd need an accurate way to assess battery quality - or else you'll wind up trading good batteries for problematic ones.
I don't doubt that may become solution someday, but think fast charging with a common plug / charge setup is a more likely short term solution.
[quote]"If Apple's looking for a seamless transition, advises the NYT's James B. Stewart, it definitely shouldn't look to Hewlett Packard. In the year after HP CEO Mark Hurd was told to hit-the-road-Jack, HP — led by new CEO Leo Apotheker — has embarked on a stunning shift in strategy that has left many baffled and resulted in HP's fall from Wall Street grace (its stock declined 49%). The apparent new focus on going head-to-head with SAP (Apotheker's former employer) and Oracle (Hurd's new employer) in enterprise software while ignoring the company's traditional strengths, said a software exec, is 'as if Alan Mulally left Boeing to join Ford as CEO, and announced six months later that Ford would be making airplanes.' Former HP Director Tom Perkins said, 'I didn't know there was such a thing as corporate suicide, but now we know that there is.'"[/quote]
Only time will tell if Mr. Apotheker's prescription for HP was the right one.
While abandoning low margin stuff makes sense, my guess is the real end game is a merger with one of the big software companies. You hire a software guy and you get a software guy - someone who sees the margins to be made in software vs hardware and are surprised he ditches the hardware business except where there are still decent margins to be made?
It's not surprising - HP tried to move more into non-hardware business when they tried to buy PwC's consulting arm, this is just a continuation of that strategy.
She was of the same school as Scully. "We sell a brand, not products." We need to find the business schools where they learn this shit and burn them to the ground.
--
BMO
well, for successful companies, that is true. A good brand enables companies to extract a price premium - because people know and trust the company's brand. Products, of course go hand in hand with that - you need to make good products so the brand is valuable, but you sell the brand. Otherwise, all you have is another me-too commodity.
Commodity sellers try desperately to create a brand - so they can sell it and get more. why do you think the Canadian Wheat Board spends money selling the attributes of "Canadian Wheat?" If people associate Canadian Wheat with "high quality" they will get more for their wheat.
So yes, you do sell the brand - but need good products to maintain it. HP seemed to forget what made the HP brand.
This is a ploy to dillute stock for other shareholders over time as apple will begin losing money soon.
Actually, they will be paid out in either shares already held through repurchase or otherwise on hand, or through share purchases / other cash exchanges (for example, Apple could simply repurchase the RSU's from cash on hand) as they are exercised. Either way, no dilution occurs.
Actually no, I'm not confusing anything. You are confused, not me. "Faster" means higher acceleration to most people. That you try to use terms in the opposite of the general use and claim your definition is more technical is silly,
Nice try,but fast = speed and quick = acceleration. But thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts...
Not to mention that, you are likely still wrong. Ever see a car run top-speed on the salt flats and then re-try top speed after adding 10,000+ lbs to increase top speed? I'm sure you'd argue that's wrong because more weight can't make you faster.
Adding weight judiciously could increase the achievable top speed due to changes in the car's aerodynamic response at speed; although theoretical top speed would be reduced due to simple physics.
But it does, Given facts I've seen with my own eyes and the ramblings of some random person on the Internet, the Internet is always wrong.
Such as you are in this case.
Lowering the gear ratio could easily increase the top end and acceleration.
No. Lowering the gear ration increases speed and lowers acceleration. I suggest a simple engineering mechanics book if you want proof, a basic statics book should do.
As for technically accurate, it's a bit like saying putting smaller diameter tires on a car will make it similar to a fast car because you can now peg the speedometer. Yes, that is technically accurate - you now can peg the speedometer on both cars but you aren't going the same speed; but very misleading because of what people think a speedometer or lens length represents
And yet, you are wrong. Smaller tires will usually result in faster acceleration as well.
Actually, no. You are confusing acceleration, actual speed, and indicated speed. Smaller tires yield faster acceleration but lower top speed; indicated speed will be wrong as well due to the speedometer calibration error.
I wouldn't necessarily say it was something "really dumb". It looked like a legitimate e-mail from a legitimate contact, exploiting a zero-day flaw in a system. From a user standpoint, I'm not sure they could have done anything different to avoid getting infected. Users still have to get their work done. Your average user can't spend twenty minutes researching every attachment to make sure it doesn't have a zero-day attack in it.
While I agree with you in general, and would add that a number of root causes for the infection should be explored, the user did apparently retrieve it from the trash prior to opening it. That tells me either their spam filter causes a lot of false positives and users are used to checking junk mail for real messages, indicating a systemic problem; junk email show up in their inbox and is just flagged, another systemic problem; or, the user really wasn't trained on why email goes to buck and what to do if they think it is a mistake. It's also possible they simply open fit without thinking, in which case it was dumb, IMHO, but being "dumb" was not the only cause and the same thing will happen again unless the event is really investigated to determine various probable causes and fixes put in place.
That said, could RSA as an organization have done anything different to prevent this? Of course they could have, starting with not running an OS that's two major revisions out of date (let's not get into a Windows vs. *nix discussion here). But let's not put all the blame on the user for this.
I agree - the user was the last line of defense that was breached and there were probably systemic issues that let that happen and need to be addressed. I do think the premise of the part of the article I quoted is valid, even if a bit melodramatic; the user is the bets part of the system to exploit and often the easiest which is why it's been the target long before computer technology came on the scene.
beyond the how part. The most telling part of the article is:
"That's a pretty embarrassing example for RSA," he said. "It tells you that in any reasonably sized company, including a security company, there's someone who will do something really dumb."
The world's second oldest profession has been exploiting that weakness forever. They key to information is not to compromise the leaders; you get in via the support staff. They're not thinking security. It's amazing what a simple phone call can net in terms of information; even if you are up front with what you are looking for and why you want it. The internet just makes it easier to reach them and provides new tools to extract information.
Maybe because they *claim* to have knowledge and are *helping* them when all they are doing is feeding them a line of BS?
The vast majority of "advice" on slashdot is over simplification to the point of bordering on incorrect. Given the lack of complaints about that type of "advice" a minor inconsequential error about lenses that experts make in order to have customers feel better about their purchase seems normal. I've worked as a car salesman. I quit becuse the management encouraged lying, even when telling the truth would move a car, and the other salesmen were happily ignorant. At least BB is trying in this case and isn't far off of what is technically accurate (even if arguably so).
I think we're in pretty much agreement here, about/. advice, BB, and car sales tactics. I don't think BB sales people are lying, just that they really haven't been trained to understand products they are selling so they either oversimplfy or make wrong statements as a result.
Selling product protection (which is a separate issue), however, borders on car sales tactics. I hear statements (not just at BB) such as "If it breaks you get a new one and if we don't sell it you get a better one" all the time; and that statement does not correctly or accurately represent the T&Cs in the policies. If the sales people don't know that they should; but the need to sell this policies is what is driving their actions.
As for technically accurate, it's a bit like saying putting smaller diameter tires on a car will make it similar to a fast car because you can now peg the speedometer. Yes, that is technically accurate - you now can peg the speedometer on both cars but you aren't going the same speed; but very misleading because of what people think a speedometer or lens length represents.
If the consumer doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand, why is it BB's job to educate them? If they did, they'd lose a sale (people like talking to BB and feeling smarter after, rather than dumber that they need some high school student or dropout to explain a camera to them). So I'm with BB on this.
Maybe because they *claim* to have knowledge and are *helping* them when all they are doing is feeding them a line of BS? Consumers want to have someone help them fill their needs. Unfortunately most stores don't have a clue how to do that; unless it's run by Apple or Nordstrom. The "Geek Squad" is little more than a salesperson in a funny outfit. On a lark, I had them do an estimate and "home configuration" on a home theater system. (it was free but they normally charge $99) The result was a long list of the most expensive items in the store. When I asked any questions about layout, etc was "monster is the best there is. You need it and Geek Squad protection." they didn't even bother to layout the system or make recommendations on placement. I pity the poor schmuck who thinks they are doing anything but printing a bill of materials. I don't want to feel smarter than they are, but I would like at least some semblance of thought put into an estimate.
I was never a fan of the traditional camera shop. "what are you going to shoot?" "Whatever strikes my fancy, that's why I want the telescopic zoom with lots of artifacts. It'll at least let me frame the shot I want without taking 30 lbs of equipment with me every time I take a walk." Then I get the "evil eye" and condescending questions and stupid upsell "you really need the UV filter for your indoor portrait shots."
Oddly, I've never had that experience. BB, on the OTOH, always seems to have a reason to buy a cheap UV filter and added protection (cause that's where they make their money). OTOH, they do pice match Fry's, Microcenter and Apple, saving a trip across town.
or that a cropped sensor dSLR made a 200mm lens into a 280mm lens.
Depending on the subtopic, that's correct. The dSLR will have the field of view of a 320mm lens, even if it still has the physical magnification of a 200 mm lens. Note that you will print both on the same size print, so to an untrained eye at a glance, they will not notice a difference between a 200mm lens on a dSLR and a 320mm lens on a 35mm camera (either regular or full-size sensor dSLR).
While I agree with you - it is a FOV equivalence; when I've heard them explain it they make it sound as if the resolution is magically increased. It's not entirely there fault as most consumers think of lens length in terms of magnification, not FOV, and BB (nor many other shops, for that manner) doesn't really explain the difference. They never really explain what the smaller sensor does is essentially crop the picture, so you blow it up to get the equivalent size print as a full frame, losing some detail in the process; instead they leave the impression that the 10 - 200 zoom their pushing is the same as the 300 prime that costs more than the body and lens.
or that a cropped sensor dSLR made a 200mm lens into a 280mm lens.
So I'm not sure how that's an example of their silliness. Sure, that topic is highly debated among prosumer photographers (those with the dSLR arguing with those who had enough money for a full-size sensor and both being insecure about their choices), but for those who don't care? They *are* the same...
Yea, there are plenty of measurebators on photo forums who make the/. crowd look like amateurs when it comes to arguing. To me, the silliness is they are pushing a misconception, often without realizing it, though some seem convinced it really turns the glass into something else. It's not that they are bad or evil; it's just they really don't understand the product they are selling and simply will say whatever it takes to make a sale. The marketing push to convince people that more mega pixels is better has added to the problem, IMHO, by pushing people to spend more on a body then the glass they hang on it. At least BB hasn't yet come out with Rocketfish SLR lens. Unfortunately, the local camera store, that had actual photographers as sales people, who tried to match camera with what a person planned to shoot, is a dying breed.
Because BB matched Apple's edu price, included a $100 GC, and gave me nearly $60 in Reward Zone rewards; and I got a brand new unopened MBP. Sure, I normally use Amazon or NewEgg but sometimes BB's prices are less or I'm buying a gift that would be a pain to return to Amazon if they already have/get at the same time the game or DVD.
Plus, it's fun to listen to the salespersons talk to customers. I never realized they needed to install anti-virus software on the Mac and optimize a OSX because there are two Mac viruses "in the wild."; or that a cropped sensor dSLR made a 200mm lens into a 280mm lens.
HP decided they couldn't compete at manufacturing a tablet so they killed it. WebOS still exists and may resurface as a licensed OS on 3rd party tablets from companies who know a bit about manufacturing.
HP appears to have decided that, in most cases, manufacturing technology products is a losing proposition and appears to have decided to remake itself as a software / IT consulting firm. It remains to be seen if they are successful or just become another company that gets bought out and disappears.
FTA: "Unfortunately the patent industry relies far too much on patent prior art and ignores the vast corpus of open material. The result is that many patents look stupid on their face to anybody 'skilled in the art.' "
...which begs the question: Why can't the patent office employ a few people who are skilled in the art of software?
Money. If you are really good at it, do you want to start as a GS-5 at $27K and maybe, years later, be a 13 step 10 at $93K (at which point you haven't done examination work for a number of years anyway); or would you rather make multiples of that in private industry? While there are many good people who work GS jobs, you can imagine how hard it is to hire and retain people with specific talents that are demand in the private sector
You might think that from the summary. *I* read the summary as a perfectly accurate reflection of the thrust of the article -- that a lot of tickets were being written, and that lots of them were for behaviour that doesn't seem to warrant school discipline, never mind police intervention.
Except that wasn't the thrust of the article; while giving examples of the problems the article spent significant time on concerns many had with what was happening and potential long-term consequences. The summary never mentioned any of that; it simply cherry picked the examples.
I assume your SWAT reference was not in relation to the OP's comment about "Alamo Heights Special Airborne Brigade and SEAL TEAM CROCKETT". You'd have to be unbelievably dim not to spot that this was a humorous reductio ad absurdum.
I guess, but you'd also have to be unbelievably dim, as you put it, not to notice my opening hook was a sarcastic comment on the summary's tone and line. Whatever, YMMV.
But having said that, it makes me wonder what specifically in the summary you thought misrepresented the article. The fact that lots of people are concerned about this, doesn't mean that it isn't as bad as the summary suggests: the fact remains that lots of kids are being ticketed, some of them are extremely young, and some of the behaviours clearly do not warrant the punishments being meted out.
As a noted above, the summary left out major parts of the article - that it was raising concerns and being questioned by a number of people, within and outside of the system; it really wasn't a summary and provided no overview of the article. The summary chose to present a POV - nothing wrong with that; but I suspect many/. responses are knee jerk reactions without RTFA, which seems to be the typical/. reaction; hence my sarcastic opening.
/. often seems like Rush Limbaugh for Geeks - give a slanted but angry summary of an event; and what for all the "ditto" comments. All that was missing from the summary was a kid being hauled in front of a judge for using Linux in school.
As for the article, it provided no context for the examples nor for the statistics. Without that, you really don't know what lead up to the event. Sometimes, but not always, there is a back story that reveals what was reported really isn't what it seems.
From the summary, you'd think SWAT teams have begun staking out classrooms and judges were hanging kids.
RTFA, and you discover that a number of people are concerned about this, including legislatures, educators, and judges; and are trying to figure out how to better control classrooms. Even a cop says it's a tool to use if other things don't work.
Of course,/. being/., the comments jump right past RTFA and reasoned thinking to the "POLICE STATE IS UPON US!!!! OMG!!!!! FILM AT 11."
Hospitals, at least in Denmark, are run by doctors, because supposedly only doctors knows how to run them.
Sounds better than the UK where hospitals are run by managers who have no clue about medicine, waste money on outside consultants/PFI-deals, spunk cash on fat bonuses for the pen-pushers while cutting costs on front-line services and who hound whistle-blowers into the dust.
I think it really depends on the doctors and the hospital's structure. I've worked with doctors who run hospitals very well - they understand it's a business, and no money means no mission of helping people; and know how to control costs and doctors in an effective manner.
I've worked with others where every doctor thinks they are the CEO and wants what they want - so they have different stuff for every doctor because they want *that* specific brand; and everyone wonders why they are losing money but no one will change their ways. Generally, in those cases, every doctor *knows* they are the smartest person in the room and so is unwilling to change.
No, the fact that they're limiting their selection means that they are looking for a specific link between high standardized test scores/academic achievement and the inability to recognize people by face. No one is apparently bothering to read the first paragraph on that web page.
Why are you surprised that the Chinese are interested in studying why people lose face?
Slashdot Mirror
The export of Canadian personal information outside the country is governed by PIPEDA. Google simply doesn't have the right to demand any personal info be sent to their servers outside the country's borders. This is effectively the same legislation that Germany later copied.
True, but Google is under no obligation to provide services to people who don't provide the requested information.
While I don'y like Google's policy, I also don't like any government dictating to a company they must provide services - if Google doesn't like CDN's rules they can leave.
I'd be very surprised if there wasn't a caveat in the law allowing voluntarily providing the information.
To say Apple didnt invent the tablet and then point to Microsoft seems indifference to that toy that Apple released so long ago called the Newton... before Palm..
That "toy", like the later "toy" (the iPad), launched entire new breeds of products. So apparently, you are in the minority in dismissing those groundbreaking products (yes there were other "tablets" before the iPad; but none were more than annoyingly cringeworthy). But of course, like all haters, you are too pusillanimous to subject your Karma to the drubbing it so richly deserves.
I have a Newton - the second generation. I used the last generation as well. Groundbreaking? Yes. Toys? Also yes - because they always seem to be more promise than actualization, but they were fun to play with. The last generation Newt came out at the same time the PalmPilot was taking hold and WinCE (the best acronym I've seen in a long time) was coming out with clamshells and handhelds. It had a lot more promise than the WinCE machines, but the PalmPilot really showed the way for what a PDA should be. Apple eventually took Palm’s idea and ran with it to create the iPhone while learning from the mistakes made with the Newt.
Calling something a "toy" doesn't dismiss them as not being groundbreaking or influential in planting the seed for far better follow-ons.
IMHO, the best clamshells of the era was the old HP 95/100/etc series and the Psions. Both were really useful as basic laptops for typing and doing small spreadsheet work.
Take a flat tire on a moonless night for instance. While a man is out changing nuts and bolts and doing all manner of screwing on the side of the road, will a woman so much as think to grab a flashlight and help? No.
If he's already doing all manner of screwing on the side of a road, having a women grab a flashlight and do whatever with it would not be necessary or helpful; in fact it could be very painful.
I think some of the battery arrays should be able to pulled out of the car and swapped in with a charged battery array. This process could happen in under a minute.
While it's a compelling solution, there are few obstacles to it becoming commonplace, for example:
As with plugs, you'd need a standard battery. Given manufacturers want to compete on things such as range, a standard battery would remove one area where they could differentiate their product; making it unlikely.
You'd need an accurate way to assess battery quality - or else you'll wind up trading good batteries for problematic ones.
I don't doubt that may become solution someday, but think fast charging with a common plug / charge setup is a more likely short term solution.
Only time will tell if Mr. Apotheker's prescription for HP was the right one.
While abandoning low margin stuff makes sense, my guess is the real end game is a merger with one of the big software companies. You hire a software guy and you get a software guy - someone who sees the margins to be made in software vs hardware and are surprised he ditches the hardware business except where there are still decent margins to be made?
It's not surprising - HP tried to move more into non-hardware business when they tried to buy PwC's consulting arm, this is just a continuation of that strategy.
PS Ford actually did build airplanes at one time.
At least use the correct name.
I tried to type but after the f and 2 * and K it disappeared. Dam
I feel ya, bro, I feel ya.
She was of the same school as Scully. "We sell a brand, not products." We need to find the business schools where they learn this shit and burn them to the ground.
-- BMO
well, for successful companies, that is true. A good brand enables companies to extract a price premium - because people know and trust the company's brand. Products, of course go hand in hand with that - you need to make good products so the brand is valuable, but you sell the brand. Otherwise, all you have is another me-too commodity.
Commodity sellers try desperately to create a brand - so they can sell it and get more. why do you think the Canadian Wheat Board spends money selling the attributes of "Canadian Wheat?" If people associate Canadian Wheat with "high quality" they will get more for their wheat.
So yes, you do sell the brand - but need good products to maintain it. HP seemed to forget what made the HP brand.
This is a ploy to dillute stock for other shareholders over time as apple will begin losing money soon.
Actually, they will be paid out in either shares already held through repurchase or otherwise on hand, or through share purchases / other cash exchanges (for example, Apple could simply repurchase the RSU's from cash on hand) as they are exercised. Either way, no dilution occurs.
Actually no, I'm not confusing anything. You are confused, not me. "Faster" means higher acceleration to most people. That you try to use terms in the opposite of the general use and claim your definition is more technical is silly,
Nice try,but fast = speed and quick = acceleration. But thanks for playing. We have some lovely parting gifts...
Not to mention that, you are likely still wrong. Ever see a car run top-speed on the salt flats and then re-try top speed after adding 10,000+ lbs to increase top speed? I'm sure you'd argue that's wrong because more weight can't make you faster.
Adding weight judiciously could increase the achievable top speed due to changes in the car's aerodynamic response at speed; although theoretical top speed would be reduced due to simple physics.
But it does, Given facts I've seen with my own eyes and the ramblings of some random person on the Internet, the Internet is always wrong.
Such as you are in this case.
Lowering the gear ratio could easily increase the top end and acceleration.
No. Lowering the gear ration increases speed and lowers acceleration. I suggest a simple engineering mechanics book if you want proof, a basic statics book should do.
As for technically accurate, it's a bit like saying putting smaller diameter tires on a car will make it similar to a fast car because you can now peg the speedometer. Yes, that is technically accurate - you now can peg the speedometer on both cars but you aren't going the same speed; but very misleading because of what people think a speedometer or lens length represents
And yet, you are wrong. Smaller tires will usually result in faster acceleration as well.
Actually, no. You are confusing acceleration, actual speed, and indicated speed. Smaller tires yield faster acceleration but lower top speed; indicated speed will be wrong as well due to the speedometer calibration error.
I wouldn't necessarily say it was something "really dumb". It looked like a legitimate e-mail from a legitimate contact, exploiting a zero-day flaw in a system. From a user standpoint, I'm not sure they could have done anything different to avoid getting infected. Users still have to get their work done. Your average user can't spend twenty minutes researching every attachment to make sure it doesn't have a zero-day attack in it.
While I agree with you in general, and would add that a number of root causes for the infection should be explored, the user did apparently retrieve it from the trash prior to opening it. That tells me either their spam filter causes a lot of false positives and users are used to checking junk mail for real messages, indicating a systemic problem; junk email show up in their inbox and is just flagged, another systemic problem; or, the user really wasn't trained on why email goes to buck and what to do if they think it is a mistake. It's also possible they simply open fit without thinking, in which case it was dumb, IMHO, but being "dumb" was not the only cause and the same thing will happen again unless the event is really investigated to determine various probable causes and fixes put in place.
That said, could RSA as an organization have done anything different to prevent this? Of course they could have, starting with not running an OS that's two major revisions out of date (let's not get into a Windows vs. *nix discussion here). But let's not put all the blame on the user for this.
I agree - the user was the last line of defense that was breached and there were probably systemic issues that let that happen and need to be addressed. I do think the premise of the part of the article I quoted is valid, even if a bit melodramatic; the user is the bets part of the system to exploit and often the easiest which is why it's been the target long before computer technology came on the scene.
Anyone who takes security very, very seriously because they have to will talk to you about the Air-Gap. It's a beautiful thing.
Unfortunately, the Sneaker Net can easily defeat the air gap. Of course, the Epoxy Filler Plug defeats Sneaker Net.
So now we have the security geek version of Rock Paper Scissors Spock...
"That's a pretty embarrassing example for RSA," he said. "It tells you that in any reasonably sized company, including a security company, there's someone who will do something really dumb."
The world's second oldest profession has been exploiting that weakness forever. They key to information is not to compromise the leaders; you get in via the support staff. They're not thinking security. It's amazing what a simple phone call can net in terms of information; even if you are up front with what you are looking for and why you want it. The internet just makes it easier to reach them and provides new tools to extract information.
Maybe because they *claim* to have knowledge and are *helping* them when all they are doing is feeding them a line of BS?
The vast majority of "advice" on slashdot is over simplification to the point of bordering on incorrect. Given the lack of complaints about that type of "advice" a minor inconsequential error about lenses that experts make in order to have customers feel better about their purchase seems normal. I've worked as a car salesman. I quit becuse the management encouraged lying, even when telling the truth would move a car, and the other salesmen were happily ignorant. At least BB is trying in this case and isn't far off of what is technically accurate (even if arguably so).
I think we're in pretty much agreement here, about /. advice, BB, and car sales tactics. I don't think BB sales people are lying, just that they really haven't been trained to understand products they are selling so they either oversimplfy or make wrong statements as a result.
Selling product protection (which is a separate issue), however, borders on car sales tactics. I hear statements (not just at BB) such as "If it breaks you get a new one and if we don't sell it you get a better one" all the time; and that statement does not correctly or accurately represent the T&Cs in the policies. If the sales people don't know that they should; but the need to sell this policies is what is driving their actions.
As for technically accurate, it's a bit like saying putting smaller diameter tires on a car will make it similar to a fast car because you can now peg the speedometer. Yes, that is technically accurate - you now can peg the speedometer on both cars but you aren't going the same speed; but very misleading because of what people think a speedometer or lens length represents.
If the consumer doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand, why is it BB's job to educate them? If they did, they'd lose a sale (people like talking to BB and feeling smarter after, rather than dumber that they need some high school student or dropout to explain a camera to them). So I'm with BB on this.
Maybe because they *claim* to have knowledge and are *helping* them when all they are doing is feeding them a line of BS? Consumers want to have someone help them fill their needs. Unfortunately most stores don't have a clue how to do that; unless it's run by Apple or Nordstrom. The "Geek Squad" is little more than a salesperson in a funny outfit. On a lark, I had them do an estimate and "home configuration" on a home theater system. (it was free but they normally charge $99) The result was a long list of the most expensive items in the store. When I asked any questions about layout, etc was "monster is the best there is. You need it and Geek Squad protection." they didn't even bother to layout the system or make recommendations on placement. I pity the poor schmuck who thinks they are doing anything but printing a bill of materials. I don't want to feel smarter than they are, but I would like at least some semblance of thought put into an estimate.
I was never a fan of the traditional camera shop. "what are you going to shoot?" "Whatever strikes my fancy, that's why I want the telescopic zoom with lots of artifacts. It'll at least let me frame the shot I want without taking 30 lbs of equipment with me every time I take a walk." Then I get the "evil eye" and condescending questions and stupid upsell "you really need the UV filter for your indoor portrait shots."
Oddly, I've never had that experience. BB, on the OTOH, always seems to have a reason to buy a cheap UV filter and added protection (cause that's where they make their money). OTOH, they do pice match Fry's, Microcenter and Apple, saving a trip across town.
or that a cropped sensor dSLR made a 200mm lens into a 280mm lens.
Depending on the subtopic, that's correct. The dSLR will have the field of view of a 320mm lens, even if it still has the physical magnification of a 200 mm lens. Note that you will print both on the same size print, so to an untrained eye at a glance, they will not notice a difference between a 200mm lens on a dSLR and a 320mm lens on a 35mm camera (either regular or full-size sensor dSLR).
While I agree with you - it is a FOV equivalence; when I've heard them explain it they make it sound as if the resolution is magically increased. It's not entirely there fault as most consumers think of lens length in terms of magnification, not FOV, and BB (nor many other shops, for that manner) doesn't really explain the difference. They never really explain what the smaller sensor does is essentially crop the picture, so you blow it up to get the equivalent size print as a full frame, losing some detail in the process; instead they leave the impression that the 10 - 200 zoom their pushing is the same as the 300 prime that costs more than the body and lens.
or that a cropped sensor dSLR made a 200mm lens into a 280mm lens.
So I'm not sure how that's an example of their silliness. Sure, that topic is highly debated among prosumer photographers (those with the dSLR arguing with those who had enough money for a full-size sensor and both being insecure about their choices), but for those who don't care? They *are* the same...
Yea, there are plenty of measurebators on photo forums who make the /. crowd look like amateurs when it comes to arguing. To me, the silliness is they are pushing a misconception, often without realizing it, though some seem convinced it really turns the glass into something else. It's not that they are bad or evil; it's just they really don't understand the product they are selling and simply will say whatever it takes to make a sale. The marketing push to convince people that more mega pixels is better has added to the problem, IMHO, by pushing people to spend more on a body then the glass they hang on it. At least BB hasn't yet come out with Rocketfish SLR lens. Unfortunately, the local camera store, that had actual photographers as sales people, who tried to match camera with what a person planned to shoot, is a dying breed.
And you still paid too much for that MBP.
Considering no one had it cheaper it worked out reasonably well.
Because BB matched Apple's edu price, included a $100 GC, and gave me nearly $60 in Reward Zone rewards; and I got a brand new unopened MBP. Sure, I normally use Amazon or NewEgg but sometimes BB's prices are less or I'm buying a gift that would be a pain to return to Amazon if they already have/get at the same time the game or DVD.
Plus, it's fun to listen to the salespersons talk to customers. I never realized they needed to install anti-virus software on the Mac and optimize a OSX because there are two Mac viruses "in the wild."; or that a cropped sensor dSLR made a 200mm lens into a 280mm lens.
HP decided they couldn't compete at manufacturing a tablet so they killed it. WebOS still exists and may resurface as a licensed OS on 3rd party tablets from companies who know a bit about manufacturing.
HP appears to have decided that, in most cases, manufacturing technology products is a losing proposition and appears to have decided to remake itself as a software / IT consulting firm. It remains to be seen if they are successful or just become another company that gets bought out and disappears.
FTA: "Unfortunately the patent industry relies far too much on patent prior art and ignores the vast corpus of open material. The result is that many patents look stupid on their face to anybody 'skilled in the art.' "
...which begs the question: Why can't the patent office employ a few people who are skilled in the art of software?
Money. If you are really good at it, do you want to start as a GS-5 at $27K and maybe, years later, be a 13 step 10 at $93K (at which point you haven't done examination work for a number of years anyway); or would you rather make multiples of that in private industry? While there are many good people who work GS jobs, you can imagine how hard it is to hire and retain people with specific talents that are demand in the private sector
You might think that from the summary. *I* read the summary as a perfectly accurate reflection of the thrust of the article -- that a lot of tickets were being written, and that lots of them were for behaviour that doesn't seem to warrant school discipline, never mind police intervention.
Except that wasn't the thrust of the article; while giving examples of the problems the article spent significant time on concerns many had with what was happening and potential long-term consequences. The summary never mentioned any of that; it simply cherry picked the examples.
I assume your SWAT reference was not in relation to the OP's comment about "Alamo Heights Special Airborne Brigade and SEAL TEAM CROCKETT". You'd have to be unbelievably dim not to spot that this was a humorous reductio ad absurdum.
I guess, but you'd also have to be unbelievably dim, as you put it, not to notice my opening hook was a sarcastic comment on the summary's tone and line. Whatever, YMMV.
But having said that, it makes me wonder what specifically in the summary you thought misrepresented the article. The fact that lots of people are concerned about this, doesn't mean that it isn't as bad as the summary suggests: the fact remains that lots of kids are being ticketed, some of them are extremely young, and some of the behaviours clearly do not warrant the punishments being meted out.
As a noted above, the summary left out major parts of the article - that it was raising concerns and being questioned by a number of people, within and outside of the system; it really wasn't a summary and provided no overview of the article. The summary chose to present a POV - nothing wrong with that; but I suspect many /. responses are knee jerk reactions without RTFA, which seems to be the typical /. reaction; hence my sarcastic opening.
/. often seems like Rush Limbaugh for Geeks - give a slanted but angry summary of an event; and what for all the "ditto" comments. All that was missing from the summary was a kid being hauled in front of a judge for using Linux in school.
As for the article, it provided no context for the examples nor for the statistics. Without that, you really don't know what lead up to the event. Sometimes, but not always, there is a back story that reveals what was reported really isn't what it seems.
From the summary, you'd think SWAT teams have begun staking out classrooms and judges were hanging kids.
RTFA, and you discover that a number of people are concerned about this, including legislatures, educators, and judges; and are trying to figure out how to better control classrooms. Even a cop says it's a tool to use if other things don't work.
Of course, /. being /., the comments jump right past RTFA and reasoned thinking to the "POLICE STATE IS UPON US!!!! OMG!!!!! FILM AT 11."
Hospitals, at least in Denmark, are run by doctors, because supposedly only doctors knows how to run them.
Sounds better than the UK where hospitals are run by managers who have no clue about medicine, waste money on outside consultants/PFI-deals, spunk cash on fat bonuses for the pen-pushers while cutting costs on front-line services and who hound whistle-blowers into the dust.
I think it really depends on the doctors and the hospital's structure. I've worked with doctors who run hospitals very well - they understand it's a business, and no money means no mission of helping people; and know how to control costs and doctors in an effective manner.
I've worked with others where every doctor thinks they are the CEO and wants what they want - so they have different stuff for every doctor because they want *that* specific brand; and everyone wonders why they are losing money but no one will change their ways. Generally, in those cases, every doctor *knows* they are the smartest person in the room and so is unwilling to change.
No, the fact that they're limiting their selection means that they are looking for a specific link between high standardized test scores/academic achievement and the inability to recognize people by face. No one is apparently bothering to read the first paragraph on that web page.
Why are you surprised that the Chinese are interested in studying why people lose face?