... this was the first one of these that really lacked something new and fresh.
As stated elsewhere, it's supposedly because Apple is tired of being a slave to the MacWorld schedule whereby (1) they have to have all the new, cool stuff ready by January that (2) hurts their Christmas sales because lots of people wait until MacWorld to see what's new before buying. Apple is successful enough (and has been for a while) now that it doesn't need MacWorld they way it used to. This was Apple's last keynote address at MacWorld. Now Apple will get to release the cool, new stuff when it's ready. It'll still have "special press events" most likely and I'd bet that Jobs will still give those.
In California, at least everywhere here that I've seen them, the cameras are installed in pairs.
At least in San Francisco, they are not in pairs. There can, however, be multiple lights for one camera.
One is behind the intersection and captures the license plate. The other is in front and captures the driver.
The lone camera is in front of the intersection and captures both the license plate and the driver.
I'm told that when you receive your ticket, it includes the two photos and you can contest it if it's not you.
It includes three photos: one of the entire car from a distance (to show the make and model), one close-up of the driver, and one close-up of the license plate.
They mail it to the owner of the license plate, and if you're not the driver you can presumably fill out a form to redirect it to the person in the photo.
That's true. Unfortunately, you can't contest the photo if it doesn't clearly show the driver. For that, you have to go to court.
... even if it was your license plate, couldn't you claim that you weren't driving the car at the time?
You could, yes. However, no judge will believe that alone.
Either you have to identify the driver or you have to convince the judge that the photo is of sufficiently bad quality so that the driver could easily be somebody else. (It would also help if you had an air-tight alibi for what you were doing at the time, such as a receipt with a timestamp from somewhere that's nowhere near your car at the time.)
The spreadsheet application can only do spreadsheets. The fact that current OSs can multitask is irrelevant.
(I could use a washing machine as an expensive paperweight also, but that fact is also likewise irrelevant.)
For a software patent, "the machine" is the machine that results when the software is running on it. For example, when a computer is running a spreadsheet application, "the machine" is a "spreadsheet machine." (Don't believe it? Look it up.)
AFAIK, that's not one of the reasons for the touch-screen.
The lawsuit prompted the development of Graffiti 2, which, IMHO, is better than the original.
(Among other things, you can write all letters in lower-case.
The original Graffiti forced an odd mix of upper- and lower-case.)
I'd still trust the guy that finished at the bottom of his medical school to do basic diagnoses and stitch me up reasonably well.
That's the medical equivalent of "Hello, world."
Can you say something equivalent about EVERY graduate of a computer science class?
Sure, I'd trust any graduate to write a simple program (e.g., read data, process, write results).
My point is that certifications (alone) solve nothing. Mentoring is a much better answer. Indeed, this is precisely what happens in medicine. It's the mentoring there that works, not the fact that people get pieces of paper (certifications) along the way.
[I]f you're a business and need some complex accounting done, you get a CA not just some guy with a few accounting degrees.
Surely you've heard the joke:
Q: What do they call the guy who graduated medical school at the bottom of his class?
A: Doctor.
Having an organizational affiliation or certificate guarantees nothing about a person's ability.
Re:That's what you get... for not using FedEx
on
USPS Server Meltdown
·
· Score: 3, Informative
... [F]or FedEx, UPS, DHL, et. al. such an outage directly affects the health of the organization. If people can't calculate shipping rates, they can't ship, and if they don't ship, the company doesn't make money.
The same has been true with the USPS since 1970.
Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services.
They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.
Virus writers can exploit a hole much quicker than a vendor can create, test and distribute a reliable fix.
So then how is an anti-virus vendor able to react faster than the OS vendor?
If they can't act faster, well then the OS vendor should simply incorporate what the anti-virus vendor is doing into the OS directly and then there's no need for separate anti-virus software: it's just part of the OS;
if they can act faster, well then that's just lethargy on the part of the OS vendor and not a great argument to justify the existence of anti-virus software.
P.S.: Modding as "troll" is the moderation equivalent of "anonymous coward."
When you download a random program off of the internet, run it, and it tries to modify another program, there is no way for the OS to know whether that thing you downloaded is (A) a virus or (B) a legitimate patch, such as security update to one of your existing programs.
In the Mac's case, security updates come only from Apple so, clearly, both the OS (and I) know it's a security update. For non-Apple updates, I've already established a "circle of trust" in which are the set of 3rd-party applications I use. Updates for those come only from their vendors.
Now if I want to try running some random program downloaded from the internet, then (A) Mac OS X will alert me the first time I run it (yes, I realize this is like UAC, but, unlike UAC, Mac OS X asks me only the first time), but, more importantly (B) it won't be running with super-user privileges by default (unlike Windows).
Maybe there aren't many (or any) viruses, worms and whatnot targeting the platform today, but they will come, and when they arrive, it will be a good idea to have some protection installed beforehand.
I've never understood the reason for anti-virus software in general.
If there's an exploit, then just fix the security hole.
Apple does this with their security updates.
That said, I understand the reason for anti-virus software on Windows:
Microsoft can't or won't fix the security holes.
(They tried with Vista and UAC, but that's a mess.)
I don't see how you can't see that the latter case makes a huge difference.
If GM was stupid, then the technology was good enough and either was already cost effective or could have been made so in mass production.
In speech (or instant-messenger chat), I agree with you; in writing, however, I don't.
I can tell you that since I changed my sig to what it is,
the number of times I've had to tell people that "I never said that" has pretty much dropped to zero.
The fact that GM pulled them because they weren't able to make a profit shows either that the technology wasn't good enough because it wasn't cost effective or that GM is full of morons and they could have made it work, but they just didn't.
But the technology in 1996 was already good enough.
Had GM not scrapped their electric car program, they presumably would have already made significant improvements
in the technology over the last 22 years.
The falsification proves her intent on harassing the girl.
No, her actually harassing the girl proves her intent on harassing the girl (meaning the harassment is self evident and doesn't need further proof).
The falsification was Lori's perceived means to that end.
Whether it was actually necessary is unknown.
My statement is that people are focusing on the wrong thing (the falsification) and are missing the big picture (the girl was driven to suicide).
Compared to the suicide, the falsification is small potatoes.
The reason people are focusing on the wrong thing is because that's what the prosecution charged Lori with (because that's all they could charge her with because they couldn't charge her with manslaughter).
So in other words you don't think that fraud should be prosecuted unless the prosecutors can demonstrate that there was more going on than just fraud.
I never said that.
Demonstrating that somebody was trying to defraud another party shouldn't be enough if they fail, they should actually have to succeed. That would be an extremely troubling precedent indeed.
In this case, the dangerous precedent that was set is that people can be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for having a fake profile online. It also might trigger legislation that requires full and accurate information in online profiles. That's even worse.
My guess as to why people create fake profiles is to fool others into talking to them. While sometimes I'm sure the motive is "pervy," there are probably also cases of people just being lonely and they believe no one would talk to them otherwise because they're old, fat, ugly, whatever. While I don't condone such fraud, I don't think such harmless fraud rises to the level of a crime that can be prosecuted.
For a "pervy" case, say where a pedophile fakes information to lure a child into sex, then the pedophile would be prosecuted for having sex with a minor and (most likely) the prosecutor wouldn't even bother with the fraud part as a separate charge -- why bother when they've already got him dead to rights for a serious crime?
The prosecutors wanted to prosecute Lori for manslaughter, but couldn't. So they prosecuted her for what they could similarly to the way Capone was prosecuted for tax evasion because that's all the prosecution could prove. However, as I already pointed out, the Capone case is different in that it didn't set a bad precedent because it didn't warp tax evasion law to prosecute what otherwise wouldn't be prosecuted -- in this case, merely having a fake profile online.
Doesn't the age and gender falsification mean they were trying to avoid being detected?
Unless you're prepared to say that it would have been perfectly OK for Lori to use her real name and information to drive the girl to suicide, then the fact that she falsified information is (still) irrelevant. Your missing the big picture.
In a legal sense it is relevant though as someones actions speak to their intent.
The harassment by itself spoke to her intent and is the lion's share of the tragedy.
The fact that she falsified information is small potatoes.
She most likely never would have been charged with computer fraud
had the prosecutors been able to charge her with manslaughter.
An adult, pretending to be a teenager who intentionally manipulates a child (which is what young teenagers are) is criminal.
Apparently not since that's not what Lori was charged with.
Just because you either think it's a crime or want it to be a crime doesn't mean it currently is.
And the fact that she used false information is still irrelevant (unless you think it would be totally OK for Lori to have "intentionally manipulated" the girl to commit suicide had Lori used her real information). This is my only point.
Slashdot Mirror
Except Noah Wyle looks much more like Steve (or at least Steve when he was younger).
As stated elsewhere, it's supposedly because Apple is tired of being a slave to the MacWorld schedule whereby (1) they have to have all the new, cool stuff ready by January that (2) hurts their Christmas sales because lots of people wait until MacWorld to see what's new before buying. Apple is successful enough (and has been for a while) now that it doesn't need MacWorld they way it used to. This was Apple's last keynote address at MacWorld. Now Apple will get to release the cool, new stuff when it's ready. It'll still have "special press events" most likely and I'd bet that Jobs will still give those.
At least in San Francisco, they are not in pairs. There can, however, be multiple lights for one camera.
The lone camera is in front of the intersection and captures both the license plate and the driver.
It includes three photos: one of the entire car from a distance (to show the make and model), one close-up of the driver, and one close-up of the license plate.
That's true. Unfortunately, you can't contest the photo if it doesn't clearly show the driver. For that, you have to go to court.
You could, yes. However, no judge will believe that alone. Either you have to identify the driver or you have to convince the judge that the photo is of sufficiently bad quality so that the driver could easily be somebody else. (It would also help if you had an air-tight alibi for what you were doing at the time, such as a receipt with a timestamp from somewhere that's nowhere near your car at the time.)
The spreadsheet application can only do spreadsheets. The fact that current OSs can multitask is irrelevant. (I could use a washing machine as an expensive paperweight also, but that fact is also likewise irrelevant.)
For a software patent, "the machine" is the machine that results when the software is running on it. For example, when a computer is running a spreadsheet application, "the machine" is a "spreadsheet machine." (Don't believe it? Look it up.)
AFAIK, that's not one of the reasons for the touch-screen. The lawsuit prompted the development of Graffiti 2, which, IMHO, is better than the original. (Among other things, you can write all letters in lower-case. The original Graffiti forced an odd mix of upper- and lower-case.)
That's the medical equivalent of "Hello, world."
Sure, I'd trust any graduate to write a simple program (e.g., read data, process, write results).
My point is that certifications (alone) solve nothing. Mentoring is a much better answer. Indeed, this is precisely what happens in medicine. It's the mentoring there that works, not the fact that people get pieces of paper (certifications) along the way.
Surely you've heard the joke:
Q: What do they call the guy who graduated medical school at the bottom of his class?
A: Doctor.
Having an organizational affiliation or certificate guarantees nothing about a person's ability.
The same has been true with the USPS since 1970. Their entire budget is financed by people buying stamps and other services. They don't get a dime of taxpayer money.
Not legal marriages, but polygamy still practiced by Mormon fundamentalists.
So then how is an anti-virus vendor able to react faster than the OS vendor? If they can't act faster, well then the OS vendor should simply incorporate what the anti-virus vendor is doing into the OS directly and then there's no need for separate anti-virus software: it's just part of the OS; if they can act faster, well then that's just lethargy on the part of the OS vendor and not a great argument to justify the existence of anti-virus software.
P.S.: Modding as "troll" is the moderation equivalent of "anonymous coward."
In the Mac's case, security updates come only from Apple so, clearly, both the OS (and I) know it's a security update. For non-Apple updates, I've already established a "circle of trust" in which are the set of 3rd-party applications I use. Updates for those come only from their vendors.
Now if I want to try running some random program downloaded from the internet, then (A) Mac OS X will alert me the first time I run it (yes, I realize this is like UAC, but, unlike UAC, Mac OS X asks me only the first time), but, more importantly (B) it won't be running with super-user privileges by default (unlike Windows).
I've never understood the reason for anti-virus software in general. If there's an exploit, then just fix the security hole. Apple does this with their security updates.
That said, I understand the reason for anti-virus software on Windows: Microsoft can't or won't fix the security holes. (They tried with Vista and UAC, but that's a mess.)
Change "advertising" in this to "research budget" and it's apropos. :P
I don't see how you can't see that the latter case makes a huge difference. If GM was stupid, then the technology was good enough and either was already cost effective or could have been made so in mass production.
In speech (or instant-messenger chat), I agree with you; in writing, however, I don't. I can tell you that since I changed my sig to what it is, the number of times I've had to tell people that "I never said that" has pretty much dropped to zero.
But which was it? It makes a huge difference.
I don't believe GM.
But the people who drove them loved them and wanted to buy the cars from GM (when the lease expired). To me, that says the technology was good enough.
But the technology in 1996 was already good enough. Had GM not scrapped their electric car program, they presumably would have already made significant improvements in the technology over the last 22 years.
No, her actually harassing the girl proves her intent on harassing the girl (meaning the harassment is self evident and doesn't need further proof). The falsification was Lori's perceived means to that end. Whether it was actually necessary is unknown. My statement is that people are focusing on the wrong thing (the falsification) and are missing the big picture (the girl was driven to suicide). Compared to the suicide, the falsification is small potatoes. The reason people are focusing on the wrong thing is because that's what the prosecution charged Lori with (because that's all they could charge her with because they couldn't charge her with manslaughter).
I never said that.
In this case, the dangerous precedent that was set is that people can be prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act for having a fake profile online. It also might trigger legislation that requires full and accurate information in online profiles. That's even worse.
My guess as to why people create fake profiles is to fool others into talking to them. While sometimes I'm sure the motive is "pervy," there are probably also cases of people just being lonely and they believe no one would talk to them otherwise because they're old, fat, ugly, whatever. While I don't condone such fraud, I don't think such harmless fraud rises to the level of a crime that can be prosecuted.
For a "pervy" case, say where a pedophile fakes information to lure a child into sex, then the pedophile would be prosecuted for having sex with a minor and (most likely) the prosecutor wouldn't even bother with the fraud part as a separate charge -- why bother when they've already got him dead to rights for a serious crime?
The prosecutors wanted to prosecute Lori for manslaughter, but couldn't. So they prosecuted her for what they could similarly to the way Capone was prosecuted for tax evasion because that's all the prosecution could prove. However, as I already pointed out, the Capone case is different in that it didn't set a bad precedent because it didn't warp tax evasion law to prosecute what otherwise wouldn't be prosecuted -- in this case, merely having a fake profile online.
Unless you're prepared to say that it would have been perfectly OK for Lori to use her real name and information to drive the girl to suicide, then the fact that she falsified information is (still) irrelevant. Your missing the big picture.
The harassment by itself spoke to her intent and is the lion's share of the tragedy. The fact that she falsified information is small potatoes. She most likely never would have been charged with computer fraud had the prosecutors been able to charge her with manslaughter.
Apparently not since that's not what Lori was charged with. Just because you either think it's a crime or want it to be a crime doesn't mean it currently is. And the fact that she used false information is still irrelevant (unless you think it would be totally OK for Lori to have "intentionally manipulated" the girl to commit suicide had Lori used her real information). This is my only point.
Probably. But that's not equivalent to "never." My question still stands.