how will this be workable? So you're telling me a CEO who is sitting on top of a corporation, who is multiple layers of operations removed is to be held responsible for data leaks?
YES, the CEO can always CHOOSE to have his company NOT STORE such data in the first place, and the CEO can always CHOOSE to spend more on data security.
Data leaks could happen only because the CEO chose to store such data AND did spend enough on data security.
I love how people are just ignoring the obvious reason for it - video calling.
People don't buy that excuse because it did not pass the sniff test.
A sensible location for the video calling camera would be on the handset dock and covered when the headset is docked, visible only when you take out the handset to make calls.
Another sensible setup for video call would be a physical cover for the camera such as a sliding door, so you can cover it to receive a video call even when you happened to be in a not-so-presentable state (putting on make up, just woke up bleary eyed, etc).
Putting the camera below the screen without any cover so it can see you all the time only made sense if the use cases include monitoring the passenger for the entire flight.
This has nothing to do with mis-management. I believe every large company with a large workforce needs to go through and cut 5% or so every now and then. It gives them an easy chance to cut the bottom performers as well as evaluate positions that might be unneeded now. Even companies that are hiring still fire people because the needs of the company change over time with a company like this.
Obviously you have never worked in any large companies for any length of time.
Those on the top management have no idea where the bottom performers are, those middle-managers will keep only their lackeys while cutting away anyone who could potentially threaten their position (especially high performers who they cannot dominate), and those first level managers near the bottom only wanted to keep enough hands on the team to do the job so they wanted to keep everyone. So no matter where the decision was made, it has no relation to the individual's performance.
There NO WAY in hell that any large company can cut away 7% of its staff without at least half of them top/good performers.
if one of those C-level executives had the choice between a $10 million/year job that they hated and was a waste of time, and a $9 million/year job they loved and was fulfilling, which one would they choose?.
The simple fact that you have to use such extreme example, CWOT vs love and fulfilling, just to compensate for a mere 10% pay difference demonstrated the point — money can make a lot of difference in ANY case.
If more than “enough” money won’t motivate people much, isn’t a million quite enough for most people? Would YOU choose a 1m love and fulfilling job over a 10m CWOT job? I would take the CWOT job, quit after 2 years and then do what I find love and fulfilling for the next 18 years.
But salary is a hygiene factor: if it's lower than expected it leads to dissatisfaction, but paying above expectation does not yield a lot of extra satisfaction.
It's a LIE spread by HR departments to suppress salary increases. If it were true, all C-level executives would only be paid similar to, or maybe 2-3x, the average wage of the company, not 100-200x of it. And they won't asking for, and get, even more millions in bonus and stock options every year, plus a golden parachute, even if they drove the company to the ground.
Speak for yourself. Pay ME above expectation will certainly give ME a lot of extra satisfaction.
In fact, everyone I know at work PREFER to get a bigger bonus/higher pay as appreciating for job well done, instead of stupid appreciate cards or such cheap gimmicks.
And this applies to every new technology. ANYTHING can be “taken too far”, trouble is, no one knows where “too far” is until we are there.
Electricity - what if we wired the whole city and people go let electrocuted by accident? What if everyone depended on electric heating and we lost power in the middle of winter?
Drug - what if we made a drug which, through widespread use, caused a large number of deformed babies to be born?
The Internet - what if some company put up free services aimed at collecting personal information about everyone, the ultimate big brother!
Cell phone - what if someone tracked everyone’s location wherever they go?
All of these came to pass, and humanity survived and most of our lives were better for having these technologies rather than banning their use.
That's an individual decision, and it's up to the parents
Unfortunately, HAVING A CHOICE is exactly what some people do not want, and they will fight tooth and nails to remove this choice from everyone else.
Why? Because having a choice means being responsible for making the choice, and that terrifies some people to their core. What if their children hated them for not fixing their children’s genes which left them with a crippling disability for life?
You may think that most parents would like to have a choice when their children are involved, but there are enough choice-fearing parents around and they will climb any moral high ground to remove choices from everyone.
People download and install a game(s) that has "masses" of one-star reviews saying "this shit don't work" and "probably a virus" and clearly that's somehow Google's fault. Gotcha.
And how do you think those "masses" of one-star reviews got posted, if not for "masses" of people downloading and installing it in the first place?
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be (TODAY_PRICES + $1000), so they will gain no value at all. No one.
Your logic is complete nonsense. By your logic, then taxing everybody $1000 would deflate global prices by $1000, so everybody will lose no value at all? This is clearly wrong.
The same $1000 is worth much more to the poor than to the rich. Giving everyone the same amount helps the poor much more than the rich.
Or - and it just occured to me - is it some kind of monetization experiment all of these sites are pushing through? (it all makes sense)
These "redesign" appears when you've got a some "executive" having difficulty justifying the cost of his empire, or when an executive started building his empire in the company.
The usual pattern is to make up some "crisis" or "bold move" that required sinking in a lot of company money, then hiring a whole lot of people (or moving people from other parts of the company) under his reporting structure. That gave the executive a huge budget to spend, lots of power to abuse, and justification for his own big bonus. Until he jumped to another company to repeat.
Since the whole purpose is build empire, all criticism against the redesign will be ignored as "resistance to change".
To be fair, unless you're running your own DNS server, someone is already processing, and probably tracking, all your DNS requests, be it Google, Cloudflare (another thing to disable in Firefox - thanks Mozilla), your ISP, etc...
This is NOT a fair comparison.
Your ISP already knows the destination of every IP packet you sent out, using the ISP's DNS only provide a little bit more information (the hostname you used) to them.
Most ISP do not have the analytics capabilities of Google, nor would most ISP correlation your internet activities across all your devices, INCLUDING THOSE NOT USING YOUR ISP'S LINK, such as your mobile phone.
Claiming "someone" will get the data anyway is obscuring the fact that Alphabet's main business as a data broker. My data scattered around 10 different companies gave me better privacy than having the same data collected by Google.
Sidewalk Labs' CEO, Dan Doctoroff, says the company isn't looking to monetizing people's personal information in the way that Google does now with search information.
So they are saying they WILL collect people's personal information, just that they are "not looking" to monetize it as Google does, now.
You bet that when they got the data and have them ready to be sold, they WILL be looking to monetize it.
Or more simply, they just send the data to Google for free (thus "not monetizing it") and let Google sell it, Alphabet will get the money in the end.
On FaceID devices, hold a volume button + lock button for a couple seconds then press cancel. FaceID will now be disabled until you enter your PIN.
For TouchID devices, hold the lock button for a couple seconds and then press cancel.
Volume + lock also works for TouchID devices. Plus, the cancel step is not needed, choosing any option, or do nothing (wait for screen to auto-off), or click lock button (screen off immediately), and the phone will ask for passcode the next time you want to unlock.
I.e. just hold the volume + lock button for a few seconds until you feel the phone vibrate, is enough to make sure passcode is now needed to unlock. Anyone can do it while taking the phone out of your pocket.
So how do you define where profit was “actually earned”?
The product was designed in country X, made in country Y and sold in country Z. Was the profit “actually earned” in X, Y or Z?
The company C paid $50 to designing company A in country X and $50 to manufacturing company B in country Y and sold the product in country Z for $100. Does that mean it made no profit at all?
Companies A and B “actually earned” profits in country X and Y, right?
Both were actually owned by the same company C headquartered in country W. Now, would where the profits were “actually earned” changes?
It is so funny to see people take an purely imagined concept like “profit” and treat it as if a concrete physical phenomenon that can be well defined.
Slashdot Mirror
how will this be workable? So you're telling me a CEO who is sitting on top of a corporation, who is multiple layers of operations removed is to be held responsible for data leaks?
YES, the CEO can always CHOOSE to have his company NOT STORE such data in the first place, and the CEO can always CHOOSE to spend more on data security.
Data leaks could happen only because the CEO chose to store such data AND did spend enough on data security.
than the average amateur players.
Well, duh. People are willing to spend more on equipments for things they like to do and are good at.
I love how people are just ignoring the obvious reason for it - video calling.
People don't buy that excuse because it did not pass the sniff test.
A sensible location for the video calling camera would be on the handset dock and covered when the headset is docked, visible only when you take out the handset to make calls.
Another sensible setup for video call would be a physical cover for the camera such as a sliding door, so you can cover it to receive a video call even when you happened to be in a not-so-presentable state (putting on make up, just woke up bleary eyed, etc).
Putting the camera below the screen without any cover so it can see you all the time only made sense if the use cases include monitoring the passenger for the entire flight.
This has nothing to do with mis-management. I believe every large company with a large workforce needs to go through and cut 5% or so every now and then. It gives them an easy chance to cut the bottom performers as well as evaluate positions that might be unneeded now. Even companies that are hiring still fire people because the needs of the company change over time with a company like this.
Obviously you have never worked in any large companies for any length of time.
Those on the top management have no idea where the bottom performers are, those middle-managers will keep only their lackeys while cutting away anyone who could potentially threaten their position (especially high performers who they cannot dominate), and those first level managers near the bottom only wanted to keep enough hands on the team to do the job so they wanted to keep everyone. So no matter where the decision was made, it has no relation to the individual's performance.
There NO WAY in hell that any large company can cut away 7% of its staff without at least half of them top/good performers.
Who actually believes the accusations against Kaspersky?
I do. And only because... why wouldn't they?
Then use the same logic to believe that the US lied about Kaspersky, because... why wouldn't they?
if one of those C-level executives had the choice between a $10 million/year job that they hated and was a waste of time, and a $9 million/year job they loved and was fulfilling, which one would they choose? .
The simple fact that you have to use such extreme example, CWOT vs love and fulfilling, just to compensate for a mere 10% pay difference demonstrated the point — money can make a lot of difference in ANY case.
If more than “enough” money won’t motivate people much, isn’t a million quite enough for most people? Would YOU choose a 1m love and fulfilling job over a 10m CWOT job? I would take the CWOT job, quit after 2 years and then do what I find love and fulfilling for the next 18 years.
But salary is a hygiene factor: if it's lower than expected it leads to dissatisfaction, but paying above expectation does not yield a lot of extra satisfaction.
It's a LIE spread by HR departments to suppress salary increases. If it were true, all C-level executives would only be paid similar to, or maybe 2-3x, the average wage of the company, not 100-200x of it. And they won't asking for, and get, even more millions in bonus and stock options every year, plus a golden parachute, even if they drove the company to the ground.
Speak for yourself. Pay ME above expectation will certainly give ME a lot of extra satisfaction.
In fact, everyone I know at work PREFER to get a bigger bonus/higher pay as appreciating for job well done, instead of stupid appreciate cards or such cheap gimmicks.
I'm worried about taking it too far.
And this applies to every new technology. ANYTHING can be “taken too far”, trouble is, no one knows where “too far” is until we are there.
Electricity - what if we wired the whole city and people go let electrocuted by accident? What if everyone depended on electric heating and we lost power in the middle of winter?
Drug - what if we made a drug which, through widespread use, caused a large number of deformed babies to be born?
The Internet - what if some company put up free services aimed at collecting personal information about everyone, the ultimate big brother!
Cell phone - what if someone tracked everyone’s location wherever they go?
All of these came to pass, and humanity survived and most of our lives were better for having these technologies rather than banning their use.
That's an individual decision, and it's up to the parents
Unfortunately, HAVING A CHOICE is exactly what some people do not want, and they will fight tooth and nails to remove this choice from everyone else.
Why? Because having a choice means being responsible for making the choice, and that terrifies some people to their core. What if their children hated them for not fixing their children’s genes which left them with a crippling disability for life?
You may think that most parents would like to have a choice when their children are involved, but there are enough choice-fearing parents around and they will climb any moral high ground to remove choices from everyone.
And the grid is just a generator run by someone else.
Do you also have generator in your house and office?
People download and install a game(s) that has "masses" of one-star reviews saying "this shit don't work" and "probably a virus" and clearly that's somehow Google's fault. Gotcha.
And how do you think those "masses" of one-star reviews got posted, if not for "masses" of people downloading and installing it in the first place?
Funny thing is Facebook is blocked in China.
You know, as if the Chinese govt looked at Facebook and understood its implications years ago.
Not to mention that, unlike the extra phone battery, a such a pack will work for your NEXT phone and your friend's phone also.
. . . game players tend to be independent thinkers, which is what game playing tends to foster.
Bwhahahahaha.... hahahaha..... *sniff*
I am sure the droves of Candy Crush drones and Pokemon drones are sooooo independent thinkers. Yup.
Armies of DotA and LOL players glued to their PC day and night, a reeeeal threat to dictators!
Apple could help enhance privacy for everybody : just make an iMessage client for Android and Windows.
So Google and Microsoft can datamine iMessages from/to iPhone users? Great idea... for Google and M$.
No. I liked that iMessage is limited to Apple devices, knowing that Google cannot get their fingers on them.
That is a complete nonsese. Let's say everyone will get $1000 UBI. Does this mean, that they will earn $1000 more of value? NO. It will inflate global prices about $1000 so prices will be (TODAY_PRICES + $1000), so they will gain no value at all. No one.
Your logic is complete nonsense. By your logic, then taxing everybody $1000 would deflate global prices by $1000, so everybody will lose no value at all? This is clearly wrong.
The same $1000 is worth much more to the poor than to the rich. Giving everyone the same amount helps the poor much more than the rich.
Or - and it just occured to me - is it some kind of monetization experiment all of these sites are pushing through? (it all makes sense)
These "redesign" appears when you've got a some "executive" having difficulty justifying the cost of his empire, or when an executive started building his empire in the company.
The usual pattern is to make up some "crisis" or "bold move" that required sinking in a lot of company money, then hiring a whole lot of people (or moving people from other parts of the company) under his reporting structure. That gave the executive a huge budget to spend, lots of power to abuse, and justification for his own big bonus. Until he jumped to another company to repeat.
Since the whole purpose is build empire, all criticism against the redesign will be ignored as "resistance to change".
The CEO is just now realizing this?
No shit, when one is surrounded by yes-man and sycophants, one quickly lose touch with reality.
To be fair, unless you're running your own DNS server, someone is already processing, and probably tracking, all your DNS requests, be it Google, Cloudflare (another thing to disable in Firefox - thanks Mozilla), your ISP, etc ...
This is NOT a fair comparison.
Your ISP already knows the destination of every IP packet you sent out, using the ISP's DNS only provide a little bit more information (the hostname you used) to them.
Most ISP do not have the analytics capabilities of Google, nor would most ISP correlation your internet activities across all your devices, INCLUDING THOSE NOT USING YOUR ISP'S LINK, such as your mobile phone.
Claiming "someone" will get the data anyway is obscuring the fact that Alphabet's main business as a data broker. My data scattered around 10 different companies gave me better privacy than having the same data collected by Google.
Sidewalk Labs' CEO, Dan Doctoroff, says the company isn't looking to monetizing people's personal information in the way that Google does now with search information.
So they are saying they WILL collect people's personal information, just that they are "not looking" to monetize it as Google does, now.
You bet that when they got the data and have them ready to be sold, they WILL be looking to monetize it.
Or more simply, they just send the data to Google for free (thus "not monetizing it") and let Google sell it, Alphabet will get the money in the end.
is that rich people just pay the fine
Did you miss the part about "their device would be seized and forensically searched"?
Yes, they might be unable to unlock your device, but you will still lose the device.
On FaceID devices, hold a volume button + lock button for a couple seconds then press cancel. FaceID will now be disabled until you enter your PIN.
For TouchID devices, hold the lock button for a couple seconds and then press cancel.
Volume + lock also works for TouchID devices. Plus, the cancel step is not needed, choosing any option, or do nothing (wait for screen to auto-off), or click lock button (screen off immediately), and the phone will ask for passcode the next time you want to unlock.
I.e. just hold the volume + lock button for a few seconds until you feel the phone vibrate, is enough to make sure passcode is now needed to unlock. Anyone can do it while taking the phone out of your pocket.
So how do you define where profit was “actually earned”?
The product was designed in country X, made in country Y and sold in country Z. Was the profit “actually earned” in X, Y or Z?
The company C paid $50 to designing company A in country X and $50 to manufacturing company B in country Y and sold the product in country Z for $100. Does that mean it made no profit at all?
Companies A and B “actually earned” profits in country X and Y, right?
Both were actually owned by the same company C headquartered in country W. Now, would where the profits were “actually earned” changes?
It is so funny to see people take an purely imagined concept like “profit” and treat it as if a concrete physical phenomenon that can be well defined.
it would potentially lead to another round of tests or even unnecessary treatment if there are other signs that can be misinterpreted.
The same could be said for any visit to any doctor for any reason, so that means any visit to the doctor may be harmful?
Sound like a problem with American doctors than with anything else.
At what point of pain, of sacrifice, does "virtue signaling" turn into plain old virtue, AKA being principled?
When action was simply done in private, and not broadcasted to the world through the media.