With Identy Theft, credit card fraud is only the beginning. See how you like it when they turn in your stolen identity when busted for traffic or other crimes, when they buy a car on your identity and wreck it, or something else.
Without even having my identity stolen, someone of hte same name in the next town created enough problems for me with stupid crimes like traffic accidents and gas station holdups, which made the paper while I was making the paper for my results ininternational sports comptitions. Made for answering some interesting questions with sponsors, but I could clear it up in minutes.
I cannot imagine trying to clear it up with a stupid cop who's jsut doing his job with a (stolen identity) warrant for my arrest in his computer. And I know of people who've had that problem.
Please think a little bit before you speak.
By LAW use of SSN is illegal in most circumstances
on
Cringely on Identity Theft
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When the original Social Security act was written, many wre concerned about creating an Ad Hoc national ID number. So, it wa written into the original act that the SSN would ONLY be used for purposes related to taxation and administration of the social security system.
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE ELSE TO DEMAND YOUR SSN.
This means that anytime you are being paid, receiving money, or itmes that may result in tax credits, it is legal, so everything related to employment, prize winnings, interest payments, etc is fine.
However, fo insurance comanies, doctors offices, Departments of Motor Vehicles, and even the police, it is illigal for them to demand it, although they can request it.
But, you must be insistent and sometimes a bit devious to effect this.
When you are signing up for any insurance or signing up with a doctor or medical office, the SSN is the first thing they demand. With the insurance company, if on paper, just enter "Issue New ID" in the SSN field. If talkng to a person, they will tell you that they need the SSN to proceed. Insist that this is illegal, that they have other procedures, and ask to speak to their manager. The person will resist for some time, then come back sheepishly and tell you that they can issue another number. For doctors offices, give them the number that the Insurance company issued, as if it was the real number.
For DMV, you usually have to check for some special exception on a form or even get a special excemption form, and you may have to forego some kind of conveniences, e.g., you may have to go to the office to renew, instead of them sending the card.
With the police it is a bit more tricky, especially when some officer in Junior Gestapo mode is demanding your info at a traffic stop. I've found that they appreciate neither being told the fact that they have no right to demand that information, nor being asked if they are going to be paying me something. The best route is to simply say "I don't remember it exactly, and I don't want to risk giving you false information", which they cannot really argue with (they don't know that it only takes you 4 seconds to permanently memorize any 47 digit sequence you encounter;)
All of this is well worth avoiding all the extra links that could be made by anyone fishing in your data.
Everyone knows it has been broken for a decade, except the marketroids and "business leaders", who surely lie to themselves as well as to everyone else.
It is actually a chicken-and-egg problem to see who is at fault, the buyers or the vendors.
Let's start with the buyers, and their proxies, the press. What is the easy way to evaluate software to purchase? Surely not to take the time understand its architecture, algorithms, efficiency of code, etc. and to fully test whether it works in the environment for the intended purpose. No, it is to compare features. So, we got the "Feature List from Hell" and the trade press replete with exhaustive feature comparisons. As if they meant something.
So, as a vendor, to what are you going to build and sell? Of course, you want to be the first to be out there with just enough of each and every feature have the most filled column in the reviews (it barely matters that the features actually work). Sure, you'll also make noise about the rest, but we know it is all Marketicture. E.g., Microsoft has been talking about the benefits of code reuse since the 1980s and implying that Office was more efficient because of common elements, yet StarOffice is about the only suite that actually implements an OO component model.
The article makes an example of Oracle's bad release of 11a, because it was rushed to market. They overlook that this is repeating history -- Oracle almost went out of business in the early 90s because their software was so fundamentally rotten that they had major lawsuits from both customers and shareholders. Obviously, even the industry leaders don't learn. Or maybe they do -- Oracle did it to gain market share, and it worked; at the end of that period, the competitors with better products were fatally wounded, but Oracle "fixed it all" and came back. The lesson is obviously: "it pays screw your customers".
Then, after years of vendors rushing to market and bloating their products with useless bells and whistles that one in 10K people might ever use, and IT managers buying it all uncritically, we then get a new phenomenon.
Consolidation happens, and a few vendors gain market hegemony. Some exploit this by starting to create deliberate incompatibilities. Now, the purchasing decisions get taken out of the IT managers' hands by the business managers. Their primary concern is compatibility -- "I tried to send a critical file over to Bob Jones at our biggest customer and he couldn't open it -- I've had enough of this import/export nonsense, so, damnit, we're standardizing on Microsoft Office for everyone!". In the mid 90s, the major sales forces sold directly to top management; the goal was to go around IT, and it worked.
By not being critical and business-focused in the first place, IT management lost what little power it had. They had become plumbers. Then, they got outsourced to India.
Add to that a collection of bad or self-serving decisions on industry standards, and the mess is compounded. We now have TrueType fonts used broadly, but the more sophisticated Adobe fonts used by the serious graphics experts because John Warnock would not agree to Bill Gate's demand for zero royalties on the fonts shipped with Windows. Or, did you ever have to contend with all the incompatible International character sets and code pages on a variety of browsers and email clients? Everyone talks a good game of international standards, but when it comes right down to it, there is no one standard that is actually used everywhere -- local code is still needed for every locale. And, there are dozens of examples like this.
And, of course, this is all happening in an environment where there the vendors bear no responsibility for their product working. Marketed under "licenses" that would make a pirate blush, they can peddle crap that would generate FTC prosecution for fraud if it wasn't laughed off the shelves first. Do you know anybody that wants any kind of serious device, like a car or a plane, running a PC O
BTW, not-for-profit != "non-profit", the former is a tax status (more precisely a not-federally-and-other-places-taxed status) and the latter means you do not make a profit.
Not-For-Profit basically means that there can be no retained earnings. A regular For-Profit business can have retained earnings or losses at the end of a year, which sould be the source of dividens, etc. Non-Profits must distribute all their earnings, presumably to the beneficiaries of their charity, although it often seems to be more towards their executives...
... although he was wrong about 'perceptrons', and killed the line of neural-net type research for almost two decades, he's right about this one. At least he's trying to provoke something now instead of to kill something.
The AI field must be credited with the advances that we use everyday, mentioned in the article, sophisticated searches, subtle correlations and inferences in vast amounts of data, useful (albeit imperfect) language translators, etc.
So, Minsky is simply stating the obvious; with few exceptions, the entire field HAS abandoned the truly hard problem of cognitive intelligence, in favor of the more definable problems, such as the above successes. This is good in that it produces products that we can use everyday.
The problem as originally conceived, of creating an artificial machine that is broadly intelligent, and even conscious, remains as elusive as ever. Heck, the problem itself remains undefined - there are a lot of conjectures on the nature of consciousness, but are there any that really work? Is there even a good definition of what constitutes common-sense intelligence? Kinda hard to code without a spec...
...and the research isn't being done to develop such a spec.
this is a good that is sold on the basis of "Value Delivered" as opposed to a price related to "Cost To Produce". I.e., pricing is relatively immune to changes in production cost in either direction.
This is a market where competition is skewed -- the goods aren't fungible. In fact, the very popularity of a good in this market increases its value, exactly at the same time as reducing its per unit cost to produce (longer production runs), market (amortized over more units), etc.
So, I would not expect lower production costs to change prices from major labels. What this DOES do, though, is to enable micro-producers to actually become economical. I.e., you can buy good music from small artists at lower cost.
A full-screen Intel ad popped up on the Wired News site several times the other day. I found an "[X]" control and batted it down in a few seconds (way quicker the second time), so I never saw the whole thing. I guess you never know when good reaction times will come in handy...
The main issue with zoning is related to traffic. Just be honest and tell them what you are going to do and be prepared to answer questions about visotors, traffic, deliveries, etc. It may be an issue if you are going to be doing a lot of shipping/receiving, and will certainly be an issue if you are going to have any significant number of customers/prospects visiting -- that makes it retail. But if you are just doing computer consulting/programming, or writing packaged software delivered via the net, it will be clear to anyone that your business is largely conducted on the phone/net and at client sites -- ie., there will be no disruption of the neighborhood, or the intent of the zoning. Also, there are usually specific exemptions for certain types of home-based businesses -- be prepared and look it up before you talk to the local officials.
Also, if you will have a significant number of servers, equipment, etc. be prepared for property taxes -- they'll want to tax it just like Real Estate once the amount is larger than some threshold (e.g., $10K). So, be sure to track your depreciation.
Also, unless you are ACTUALLY reselling the equipment in some reasonable amount of time (say six months to a year), don't try to use your tax ID to evade the state/local sales taxes.
The advice of others here to get a GOOD attny and accountant is well heeded. Decisions about S/C Corp status, and many other items can affect you for years to come, so you shuld have a good idea of the potential of the biz when you start out -- is it going to be a basic proprietorship, or a growth biz that you might sell later?
The article didn't mention getting the usernames/login IDs, which are just as necesssary as the PWs. Kinda like finding a key in the street -- you've got access to something, but which of the 23 bazillion locks in the city?
Maybe it is more than having nothing, but it could be just obsolete (as in I gave you the PW to a dead acct).
Despite the sloppiness, the outcome of the study is clear, and I'd like to see a more rigorous study...
An acquaintance of mine got fired from EDS for being overheard mentioning a salary in the dining area (I'm not sure if it was his or someone else's). Some of them take it pretty seriously...
The main one is to raise capital, e.g., for expansion. Since the company is profitable, and seems to have most of its infrastructure built, this does not seem to be a pressing need, unless they wanted to implement some major business change.
The other is to gain liquidity for the current stockholders such as the founders, initial investors and stockholding employees. The employees' and founders' liquidity interests can be handled with buyback provisions. If there are other investors, it depends whether they are majority or minority and whether there are any specific exit ageements (and the evidence indicates that there arent).
Moreover, there are many risks to the IPO, starting with a failed/undersubscribed offering, and the loss of autonomy.
So, it seems that the comment that "there are so many better things to do" is exactly to the point.
One often-overlooked but critical functions of gasoline is to reduce cylinder temperatures. Aluminum melts at about 650C. Gasoline aerosols burn much hotter, depending on the mixture. Why don't the cylinders and pistons melt? Because of their thermal inertia and the liquid droplets of gasoline absorbing the heat from the previous cycle. This is why it is easy to burn a hole in a piston by running an engine too lean (although you do get more power until that point).
I saw nothing about managing this effect in a quick read of the site, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that this might work well, until you burn your pistons.
caveat emptor...
It's WAY more complex than you think...
on
Game Theory at 190mph
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
[ignore prev post as AC, didn't notice the byline was lost in preview]
I'm both a software designer by profession and a licensed auto racer (I race sportscars, but NASCAR has many similarities, and even runs on road courses several times per year).
We largely agree about 'professional wrestling' and insipid reality shows, which are merely semi-scripted morality plays, not actual sports.
However, auto racing, even NASCAR, is ENORMOUSLY complex, making SW engineering look trivial. Don't take my word for it, take that of Joe Gibbs, a NASCAR team owner and former NFL head coach. He took only three years to win a Super Bowl championship with the Washington Redskins, but over nine in his second career as a team owner to win a Winston Cup championship. Or ask Dodge, which fielded several factory teams two years ago and doesn't yet have a championship.
Working within a strict set of rules designed to keep things as fair as practical, teams must design a vehicle that is safe (can take a hit and come back another day), reliable (gets to the finish line despitet enormous stresses), fast (can put torque and HP to the wheels), and quick (is balanced and turns and brakes well). These involve thousands of devilishly complex tradeoffs; more downforce creates more drag, bigger brakes work better but add unsprung weight, stickier tires wear out quicker, and so forth. The top teams all have fully traind engineers on staff (not like CART teams which may have 20+ engineers, of F1, with 100+, but this is no 'dumb' exercise).
Then, they need to come to each track, run through as many tests as they can in a few hours to get the thing to work on the current track layout, surface, and weather conditions. The data can come off these cars at megabytes per minute, and must be analyzed in hours. Then, the data feed is removed during the race (rules to prevent feedback loops). To see a hint of this complexity, set your Tivo or Replay TV to find the the Speed Channel show called Nascar Tech -- it only scratches the surface.
The driver needs to maintain concentration in an environment that ranges between 120F and 190F, dressed in a three-layer fireproof suit and helmet, with over 100db noise, pulling several Gs of force, just inches from the other competitors, going up to going 190+mph. Aside from all the split-second racing and tactical judgements, he needs to track many operational parameters so he can tell the crew what corrections to make on the next stop. How many tires to change, change tire pressure, add or remove wing or camber, etc...
The fact is: anyone who gets even casually involved with this sport will become involved in an educational process that cannot be completed in one lifetime. Your lumping this in with scripted shows merely displays your lack of knowledge on this topic.
I used to have some similarly snobby attitudes, looking down on this populist form of the sport, but as soon as I looked more closely, I adjusted my attitude. I've also been frequently surprised with the knowledge of some of the 'bubbas' I've encountered. You might want to take a closer look also.
I don't know the specifics of CA law, but it appears to work like that in other states.
There are two classifications, exempt and non-exempt employees. Non-exempt employees are subject to all rules of overtime, lunch breaks, etc. Exempt employees are considered to be management/professional positions, who are scheduled and paid by their projects, obligations, deliverables, etc.
There are usually a set of criteria to determine what jobs/positions fall into what category. These may be specific, or a set of questions to determine the predominant characteristics. It appears that CA has a particular definition around $41/hr for coding.
The first thing is to firmly determine whether you fit into the non-exempt category. Do this outside of your employer's oversight. If you are exempt, get back to getting your deliverables in on time.
If you are non-exempt, and getting abused (i.e., working overtime w/o pay, usually including >8h/day OR 40h/week), you now have a decision to make. The first thing to do in any case is to make a DETAILED and ACCURATE LOG (don't inflate it).
With some logged data, you can bring an action. Speak to an attorney specializing in labor law, and who has experience in litigation.
One MAJOR question is WHEN to bring the action. Find out the statute of limitations. You may be able to go over a year and bring action later, i.e., when you find a new job, or are ready to leave. This has the major advantage of not subjecting you to retaliation (e.g., firing, demotion, etc.). Do not take much comfort in the anti-retaliation clauses in the law. Saying it is one thing, proving it is another, especially in these climates when layoffs are common, and they won't be hiring replacements. They can make any excuse, and you will have great difficulty and expense proving otherwise.
So learn your stuff, document everything, plan your tactics, and Good Luck!
In VT (802) and NH (603), there was significant debate as the local calling plans changed with digital switching about whether users needed to dial 1+ or just 7 digits anywhere in the state.
The promotors of 7 digit dialing throughout the area code (including the telco), cited the convenience for users.
The promotors of 1+ dialing outside the local calling area argued that users should be made aware whenever they were incurring toll costs, i.e., every time they called.
These debates went on at about the same time in both states, with the same telco in both states, and were decided differently. So, VT users dial 1+ for non-local towns, and NH users dial only 7 digits anywhere in the state.
Bottom line, the telcos can implement either system, the lobbyists and regulators may have more say. Of course, the balance of factors may be different in the heavily overloaded metro areas (e.g., greater tech constraints).
"Someone who quite blatently leaves his or her keys in their car and parks outside bars would not be viewed by most people as completely blameless in the event that a drunk staggers out, takes the car, and drives it into a shop window.
Leaving a machine unsecured and unmonitored on the Internet is a sure-fire way of ensuring it is hacked and used to attack other machines. We know this. Yet people continue to do it. They do not secure their machines once hacked, and they allow their own machines to attack others once hacked. This is negligence, pure and simple. "
In the case of the car, this is true, since it requires no technical expertise to secure the car by removing the keys. Manufacturers have made efforts to design an appropriately secure system that is easy to use, and if we do not use it, we are legally responsible (in some states) for leaving the keys in the car.
However, the manufacturers of most computer software have NOT made efforts to make the software trivially easy to secure. Even for those with grea expertise, it requires significant effort (many settings, checks tests, etc.). Thus, holding a normal user responsible for the actions of a hijacked computer is unreasonable.
Requiring that one be an expert to hook up their computer to the net is also ridiculously elitist and unreasonable. It would destroy the internet as we know it when 99%+ percent of the people were disqualified from dialing up or getting a broadband connection.
Using a vigilante approach also makes no sense when we are attacking the computers of hapless victims who A. purchased insecure software when there is little practical other choice and B. had it hijacked by others who they have never seen.
We need to hold the vendors responsible to build stable and reliable software, with sound default values. Then, when someone deliberately DE-secures a box and hooks it up, it might be reasonable to consider strikeback action.
There are just plenty of indications that eBay is NOT fundamentally ethical. They apparently do not vigorously and rigorously prosecutw all evidence, and seem willing to accept a high a rate of fraud as think will not scare off the bulk of the buyers. It seems that they just look at it as a marketing perception problem to be minimally managed.
The lesson, stay out of the popular goods, avoid the power sellers, make only modest purchases you can afford to lose, and generally beware.
There are lots of great people both buying and selling on eBay; this approach should keep you working with them.
These guys are simply trying to find the combinations of images and text that generate the highest positive response in the greatest number of viewers. To the extent that it is useful, it is fair, to the extent that it is bunk, bully for these scientists out-marketing the marketers!
The way around this (greatly oversimplified) is to tune your own filters. From studying neuroscience, one learns that, even more important than the brain's processing functions are the brain's FILTERING functions; these determine what info actually arrives to be processed. For example, outside of the visual cortex, there is an entire center that controls WHERE the eyes look, the pattern in which they move. This selects the information that the cortex sees, since there is actually a very small portion of the visual field that has good focus.
By subtly and not-so-subtly directing your attention, your patterns of info absorption can be improved. We had to learn to read by moving our eyes left to right, and now it seems natural. Similarly, we can learn to look around print and banner ads, to turn our attention elsewhere when TV ads display (or hit the ReplayTV pause/skip buttons), look away from flashing text, etc. Eventually, you will barely see the ads; this is the marketer's worst fate -- to be ignored.
We live in a world different from our ancestors -- the main threat is no longer the saber-tooth tiger lurking in the bush, it is the other human trying to subvert our thoughts to make his living. If you want to thrive, learn to adapt your filtering and response patterns to the world you live in. Or, you can do nothing but gripe and be lunchmeat.
... specifying the desired results, and inviting everyone to bring their best solutions (as opposed to the stifiling RFP process).
There are really two prizes here, the cash prize for first place, and the subsequent contracts, which may not go to the fatest, but to various good ideas found in various entries.
The animals are already asking us to stop, but they cannot speak human languages due to lack of appropiate vocal apparatus. Consider it a handicap and listen in their language (or provide a proper interpreter as required for any issue involving another's rights).
I'm a fairly big fan of Asimov, and hadn't heard that quote. Assuming it is correct, he just lost a good measure of that respect. This is not an example of expansive thinking, but of flippant justification for abhorrent practices.
FTR, I am not against all animal research, but I feel strongly that it should be as restricted and as humane as possible. Find alternatives and use human subjects whenver possible (we are the beneficiaries, after all).
The parent post highlights two of the most salient attitudes of this community, and juxtaposes them in a new way.
The moderators predominantly downgrade him as "troll" and "flamebait".
A little bit touchy are we? We should at least be able to laugh at ourselves.
If they can solve the problems of ...
on
Lotus Nanotech
·
· Score: 1
... transparency and stability on smooth surfaces, this could be even better than the RainX-type coatings on windshields (which are already great), and could work well on the rest of the car as well.
I wonder if it sheds water fast enough to prevent icing on airplane wings.
In any case, this seems like a good example of BASF's advertisement tag line: 'we don't make the things you buy, we make the things you buy better'.
The question is whether anyone knows anything about these accounts:
From: FredY9686@earthlink.com
Errors-To: Dave34_29@ecite.com
or has also seen the same or similar mailings?
One hardly needs to be able to read headers to read the From address. I mean, cripes, they didn't even bother to forge the From address to (appear to) come from the Spamcop domain.
Slashdot Mirror
With Identy Theft, credit card fraud is only the beginning. See how you like it when they turn in your stolen identity when busted for traffic or other crimes, when they buy a car on your identity and wreck it, or something else.
Without even having my identity stolen, someone of hte same name in the next town created enough problems for me with stupid crimes like traffic accidents and gas station holdups, which made the paper while I was making the paper for my results ininternational sports comptitions. Made for answering some interesting questions with sponsors, but I could clear it up in minutes.
I cannot imagine trying to clear it up with a stupid cop who's jsut doing his job with a (stolen identity) warrant for my arrest in his computer. And I know of people who've had that problem.
Please think a little bit before you speak.
When the original Social Security act was written, many wre concerned about creating an Ad Hoc national ID number. So, it wa written into the original act that the SSN would ONLY be used for purposes related to taxation and administration of the social security system.
;)
IT IS ILLEGAL FOR ANYONE ELSE TO DEMAND YOUR SSN.
This means that anytime you are being paid, receiving money, or itmes that may result in tax credits, it is legal, so everything related to employment, prize winnings, interest payments, etc is fine.
However, fo insurance comanies, doctors offices, Departments of Motor Vehicles, and even the police, it is illigal for them to demand it, although they can request it.
But, you must be insistent and sometimes a bit devious to effect this.
When you are signing up for any insurance or signing up with a doctor or medical office, the SSN is the first thing they demand. With the insurance company, if on paper, just enter "Issue New ID" in the SSN field. If talkng to a person, they will tell you that they need the SSN to proceed. Insist that this is illegal, that they have other procedures, and ask to speak to their manager. The person will resist for some time, then come back sheepishly and tell you that they can issue another number. For doctors offices, give them the number that the Insurance company issued, as if it was the real number.
For DMV, you usually have to check for some special exception on a form or even get a special excemption form, and you may have to forego some kind of conveniences, e.g., you may have to go to the office to renew, instead of them sending the card.
With the police it is a bit more tricky, especially when some officer in Junior Gestapo mode is demanding your info at a traffic stop. I've found that they appreciate neither being told the fact that they have no right to demand that information, nor being asked if they are going to be paying me something. The best route is to simply say "I don't remember it exactly, and I don't want to risk giving you false information", which they cannot really argue with (they don't know that it only takes you 4 seconds to permanently memorize any 47 digit sequence you encounter
All of this is well worth avoiding all the extra links that could be made by anyone fishing in your data.
It is actually a chicken-and-egg problem to see who is at fault, the buyers or the vendors.
Let's start with the buyers, and their proxies, the press. What is the easy way to evaluate software to purchase? Surely not to take the time understand its architecture, algorithms, efficiency of code, etc. and to fully test whether it works in the environment for the intended purpose. No, it is to compare features. So, we got the "Feature List from Hell" and the trade press replete with exhaustive feature comparisons. As if they meant something.
So, as a vendor, to what are you going to build and sell? Of course, you want to be the first to be out there with just enough of each and every feature have the most filled column in the reviews (it barely matters that the features actually work). Sure, you'll also make noise about the rest, but we know it is all Marketicture. E.g., Microsoft has been talking about the benefits of code reuse since the 1980s and implying that Office was more efficient because of common elements, yet StarOffice is about the only suite that actually implements an OO component model.
The article makes an example of Oracle's bad release of 11a, because it was rushed to market. They overlook that this is repeating history -- Oracle almost went out of business in the early 90s because their software was so fundamentally rotten that they had major lawsuits from both customers and shareholders. Obviously, even the industry leaders don't learn. Or maybe they do -- Oracle did it to gain market share, and it worked; at the end of that period, the competitors with better products were fatally wounded, but Oracle "fixed it all" and came back. The lesson is obviously: "it pays screw your customers".
Then, after years of vendors rushing to market and bloating their products with useless bells and whistles that one in 10K people might ever use, and IT managers buying it all uncritically, we then get a new phenomenon.
Consolidation happens, and a few vendors gain market hegemony. Some exploit this by starting to create deliberate incompatibilities. Now, the purchasing decisions get taken out of the IT managers' hands by the business managers. Their primary concern is compatibility -- "I tried to send a critical file over to Bob Jones at our biggest customer and he couldn't open it -- I've had enough of this import/export nonsense, so, damnit, we're standardizing on Microsoft Office for everyone!". In the mid 90s, the major sales forces sold directly to top management; the goal was to go around IT, and it worked.
By not being critical and business-focused in the first place, IT management lost what little power it had. They had become plumbers. Then, they got outsourced to India.
Add to that a collection of bad or self-serving decisions on industry standards, and the mess is compounded. We now have TrueType fonts used broadly, but the more sophisticated Adobe fonts used by the serious graphics experts because John Warnock would not agree to Bill Gate's demand for zero royalties on the fonts shipped with Windows. Or, did you ever have to contend with all the incompatible International character sets and code pages on a variety of browsers and email clients? Everyone talks a good game of international standards, but when it comes right down to it, there is no one standard that is actually used everywhere -- local code is still needed for every locale. And, there are dozens of examples like this.
And, of course, this is all happening in an environment where there the vendors bear no responsibility for their product working. Marketed under "licenses" that would make a pirate blush, they can peddle crap that would generate FTC prosecution for fraud if it wasn't laughed off the shelves first. Do you know anybody that wants any kind of serious device, like a car or a plane, running a PC O
Not-For-Profit basically means that there can be no retained earnings. A regular For-Profit business can have retained earnings or losses at the end of a year, which sould be the source of dividens, etc. Non-Profits must distribute all their earnings, presumably to the beneficiaries of their charity, although it often seems to be more towards their executives...
The AI field must be credited with the advances that we use everyday, mentioned in the article, sophisticated searches, subtle correlations and inferences in vast amounts of data, useful (albeit imperfect) language translators, etc.
So, Minsky is simply stating the obvious; with few exceptions, the entire field HAS abandoned the truly hard problem of cognitive intelligence, in favor of the more definable problems, such as the above successes. This is good in that it produces products that we can use everyday.
The problem as originally conceived, of creating an artificial machine that is broadly intelligent, and even conscious, remains as elusive as ever. Heck, the problem itself remains undefined - there are a lot of conjectures on the nature of consciousness, but are there any that really work? Is there even a good definition of what constitutes common-sense intelligence? Kinda hard to code without a spec...
This is a market where competition is skewed -- the goods aren't fungible. In fact, the very popularity of a good in this market increases its value, exactly at the same time as reducing its per unit cost to produce (longer production runs), market (amortized over more units), etc.
So, I would not expect lower production costs to change prices from major labels. What this DOES do, though, is to enable micro-producers to actually become economical. I.e., you can buy good music from small artists at lower cost.
A full-screen Intel ad popped up on the Wired News site several times the other day. I found an "[X]" control and batted it down in a few seconds (way quicker the second time), so I never saw the whole thing. I guess you never know when good reaction times will come in handy ...
Also, if you will have a significant number of servers, equipment, etc. be prepared for property taxes -- they'll want to tax it just like Real Estate once the amount is larger than some threshold (e.g., $10K). So, be sure to track your depreciation.
Also, unless you are ACTUALLY reselling the equipment in some reasonable amount of time (say six months to a year), don't try to use your tax ID to evade the state/local sales taxes.
The advice of others here to get a GOOD attny and accountant is well heeded. Decisions about S/C Corp status, and many other items can affect you for years to come, so you shuld have a good idea of the potential of the biz when you start out -- is it going to be a basic proprietorship, or a growth biz that you might sell later?
Maybe it is more than having nothing, but it could be just obsolete (as in I gave you the PW to a dead acct).
Despite the sloppiness, the outcome of the study is clear, and I'd like to see a more rigorous study...
An acquaintance of mine got fired from EDS for being overheard mentioning a salary in the dining area (I'm not sure if it was his or someone else's). Some of them take it pretty seriously...
The main one is to raise capital, e.g., for expansion. Since the company is profitable, and seems to have most of its infrastructure built, this does not seem to be a pressing need, unless they wanted to implement some major business change.
The other is to gain liquidity for the current stockholders such as the founders, initial investors and stockholding employees. The employees' and founders' liquidity interests can be handled with buyback provisions. If there are other investors, it depends whether they are majority or minority and whether there are any specific exit ageements (and the evidence indicates that there arent).
Moreover, there are many risks to the IPO, starting with a failed/undersubscribed offering, and the loss of autonomy.
So, it seems that the comment that "there are so many better things to do" is exactly to the point.
I saw nothing about managing this effect in a quick read of the site, and it wouldn't surprise me to find that this might work well, until you burn your pistons.
caveat emptor...
I'm both a software designer by profession and a licensed auto racer (I race sportscars, but NASCAR has many similarities, and even runs on road courses several times per year). We largely agree about 'professional wrestling' and insipid reality shows, which are merely semi-scripted morality plays, not actual sports.
However, auto racing, even NASCAR, is ENORMOUSLY complex, making SW engineering look trivial. Don't take my word for it, take that of Joe Gibbs, a NASCAR team owner and former NFL head coach. He took only three years to win a Super Bowl championship with the Washington Redskins, but over nine in his second career as a team owner to win a Winston Cup championship. Or ask Dodge, which fielded several factory teams two years ago and doesn't yet have a championship.
Working within a strict set of rules designed to keep things as fair as practical, teams must design a vehicle that is safe (can take a hit and come back another day), reliable (gets to the finish line despitet enormous stresses), fast (can put torque and HP to the wheels), and quick (is balanced and turns and brakes well). These involve thousands of devilishly complex tradeoffs; more downforce creates more drag, bigger brakes work better but add unsprung weight, stickier tires wear out quicker, and so forth. The top teams all have fully traind engineers on staff (not like CART teams which may have 20+ engineers, of F1, with 100+, but this is no 'dumb' exercise).
Then, they need to come to each track, run through as many tests as they can in a few hours to get the thing to work on the current track layout, surface, and weather conditions. The data can come off these cars at megabytes per minute, and must be analyzed in hours. Then, the data feed is removed during the race (rules to prevent feedback loops). To see a hint of this complexity, set your Tivo or Replay TV to find the the Speed Channel show called Nascar Tech -- it only scratches the surface.
The driver needs to maintain concentration in an environment that ranges between 120F and 190F, dressed in a three-layer fireproof suit and helmet, with over 100db noise, pulling several Gs of force, just inches from the other competitors, going up to going 190+mph. Aside from all the split-second racing and tactical judgements, he needs to track many operational parameters so he can tell the crew what corrections to make on the next stop. How many tires to change, change tire pressure, add or remove wing or camber, etc...
The fact is: anyone who gets even casually involved with this sport will become involved in an educational process that cannot be completed in one lifetime. Your lumping this in with scripted shows merely displays your lack of knowledge on this topic.
I used to have some similarly snobby attitudes, looking down on this populist form of the sport, but as soon as I looked more closely, I adjusted my attitude. I've also been frequently surprised with the knowledge of some of the 'bubbas' I've encountered. You might want to take a closer look also.
There are two classifications, exempt and non-exempt employees. Non-exempt employees are subject to all rules of overtime, lunch breaks, etc. Exempt employees are considered to be management/professional positions, who are scheduled and paid by their projects, obligations, deliverables, etc.
There are usually a set of criteria to determine what jobs/positions fall into what category. These may be specific, or a set of questions to determine the predominant characteristics. It appears that CA has a particular definition around $41/hr for coding.
The first thing is to firmly determine whether you fit into the non-exempt category. Do this outside of your employer's oversight. If you are exempt, get back to getting your deliverables in on time.
If you are non-exempt, and getting abused (i.e., working overtime w/o pay, usually including >8h/day OR 40h/week), you now have a decision to make. The first thing to do in any case is to make a DETAILED and ACCURATE LOG (don't inflate it).
With some logged data, you can bring an action. Speak to an attorney specializing in labor law, and who has experience in litigation.
One MAJOR question is WHEN to bring the action. Find out the statute of limitations. You may be able to go over a year and bring action later, i.e., when you find a new job, or are ready to leave. This has the major advantage of not subjecting you to retaliation (e.g., firing, demotion, etc.). Do not take much comfort in the anti-retaliation clauses in the law. Saying it is one thing, proving it is another, especially in these climates when layoffs are common, and they won't be hiring replacements. They can make any excuse, and you will have great difficulty and expense proving otherwise.
So learn your stuff, document everything, plan your tactics, and Good Luck!
The promotors of 7 digit dialing throughout the area code (including the telco), cited the convenience for users.
The promotors of 1+ dialing outside the local calling area argued that users should be made aware whenever they were incurring toll costs, i.e., every time they called.
These debates went on at about the same time in both states, with the same telco in both states, and were decided differently. So, VT users dial 1+ for non-local towns, and NH users dial only 7 digits anywhere in the state.
Bottom line, the telcos can implement either system, the lobbyists and regulators may have more say. Of course, the balance of factors may be different in the heavily overloaded metro areas (e.g., greater tech constraints).
Leaving a machine unsecured and unmonitored on the Internet is a sure-fire way of ensuring it is hacked and used to attack other machines. We know this. Yet people continue to do it. They do not secure their machines once hacked, and they allow their own machines to attack others once hacked. This is negligence, pure and simple. "
In the case of the car, this is true, since it requires no technical expertise to secure the car by removing the keys. Manufacturers have made efforts to design an appropriately secure system that is easy to use, and if we do not use it, we are legally responsible (in some states) for leaving the keys in the car.
However, the manufacturers of most computer software have NOT made efforts to make the software trivially easy to secure. Even for those with grea expertise, it requires significant effort (many settings, checks tests, etc.). Thus, holding a normal user responsible for the actions of a hijacked computer is unreasonable.
Requiring that one be an expert to hook up their computer to the net is also ridiculously elitist and unreasonable. It would destroy the internet as we know it when 99%+ percent of the people were disqualified from dialing up or getting a broadband connection.
Using a vigilante approach also makes no sense when we are attacking the computers of hapless victims who A. purchased insecure software when there is little practical other choice and B. had it hijacked by others who they have never seen.
We need to hold the vendors responsible to build stable and reliable software, with sound default values. Then, when someone deliberately DE-secures a box and hooks it up, it might be reasonable to consider strikeback action.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/818257.asp?0cb=-11911095 7
0 95 7
http://www.msnbc.com/news/809148.asp?0cb=-21911
There are just plenty of indications that eBay is NOT fundamentally ethical. They apparently do not vigorously and rigorously prosecutw all evidence, and seem willing to accept a high a rate of fraud as think will not scare off the bulk of the buyers. It seems that they just look at it as a marketing perception problem to be minimally managed.
The lesson, stay out of the popular goods, avoid the power sellers, make only modest purchases you can afford to lose, and generally beware.
There are lots of great people both buying and selling on eBay; this approach should keep you working with them.
These guys are simply trying to find the combinations of images and text that generate the highest positive response in the greatest number of viewers. To the extent that it is useful, it is fair, to the extent that it is bunk, bully for these scientists out-marketing the marketers!
The way around this (greatly oversimplified) is to tune your own filters. From studying neuroscience, one learns that, even more important than the brain's processing functions are the brain's FILTERING functions; these determine what info actually arrives to be processed. For example, outside of the visual cortex, there is an entire center that controls WHERE the eyes look, the pattern in which they move. This selects the information that the cortex sees, since there is actually a very small portion of the visual field that has good focus.
By subtly and not-so-subtly directing your attention, your patterns of info absorption can be improved. We had to learn to read by moving our eyes left to right, and now it seems natural. Similarly, we can learn to look around print and banner ads, to turn our attention elsewhere when TV ads display (or hit the ReplayTV pause/skip buttons), look away from flashing text, etc. Eventually, you will barely see the ads; this is the marketer's worst fate -- to be ignored.
We live in a world different from our ancestors -- the main threat is no longer the saber-tooth tiger lurking in the bush, it is the other human trying to subvert our thoughts to make his living. If you want to thrive, learn to adapt your filtering and response patterns to the world you live in. Or, you can do nothing but gripe and be lunchmeat.
Thanks for clearing that up.
We've got to watch those "significant liberties"...
... specifying the desired results, and inviting everyone to bring their best solutions (as opposed to the stifiling RFP process).
There are really two prizes here, the cash prize for first place, and the subsequent contracts, which may not go to the fatest, but to various good ideas found in various entries.
I hope they televise it
The animals are already asking us to stop, but they cannot speak human languages due to lack of appropiate vocal apparatus. Consider it a handicap and listen in their language (or provide a proper interpreter as required for any issue involving another's rights).
I'm a fairly big fan of Asimov, and hadn't heard that quote. Assuming it is correct, he just lost a good measure of that respect. This is not an example of expansive thinking, but of flippant justification for abhorrent practices.
FTR, I am not against all animal research, but I feel strongly that it should be as restricted and as humane as possible. Find alternatives and use human subjects whenver possible (we are the beneficiaries, after all).
The parent post highlights two of the most salient attitudes of this community, and juxtaposes them in a new way.
The moderators predominantly downgrade him as "troll" and "flamebait".
A little bit touchy are we? We should at least be able to laugh at ourselves.
... transparency and stability on smooth surfaces, this could be even better than the RainX-type coatings on windshields (which are already great), and could work well on the rest of the car as well.
I wonder if it sheds water fast enough to prevent icing on airplane wings.
In any case, this seems like a good example of BASF's advertisement tag line: 'we don't make the things you buy, we make the things you buy better'.
The question is whether anyone knows anything about the accounts in the headers or has also seen the same or similar disinformation mailings...
The question is whether anyone knows anything about these accounts:
From: FredY9686@earthlink.com
Errors-To: Dave34_29@ecite.com
or has also seen the same or similar mailings?
One hardly needs to be able to read headers to read the From address. I mean, cripes, they didn't even bother to forge the From address to (appear to) come from the Spamcop domain.