I don't think you understand how QR codes would work. You can still do 2 factor, for instance, which negates your concerns about phone security ( which are largely moot anyway as most payment applications require a pin beyond phone security ). Furthermore, phone security is obviously "good enough" now as demonstrated by all the mobile bank apps in existence.
The beauty of QR codes is how simply they are to generate, meaning the applications used would be easy to write and deploy. ie: Any phone model from the last 5 years would be workable.
And no; QR codes wouldn't face the same challenges as chip and pin. Chip and Pin is an overly complicated protocol dependent on specialized niche hardware. That's where it fails. QR codes would only need the hardware that you already carry around in your pocket, or that most ( almost all ) stores already have attached to their POS systems. Everything else is software, which means faster turnaround time for implementation and patches.
I wasn't talking about the security with my "silly system" statement, but the overall package. The terminal design, the overhead on comms, the difficulty for retailers to switch over. It is ridiculous, as designed.
As far as availability of devices...I want you to go to any store, and look at the folks standing in line. What are they doing? Poking around on their smart phone. The tech is here, ready to be used.
I can confirm; every place that has upgraded their equipment has experienced significant slowdowns in the transaction process. It is, frankly, ridiculous. It shouldn't take upwards of a minute to process the transaction where before it took seconds.
On top of all that, it's a silly system. Why don't we use disposable QR codes that they scan for the transaction? That would seem to be a more secure and easier to implement solution; the equipment is already there, it would just require software.
The only thing that interests me is the fitness tracker, and I'm not willing to spend more than 50 bucks to get something like that.
I'm probably the outlier. I have been in the past, although notably, not with smart phones. I recall disappointment with RIM, then with Apple, at the offerings. It wasn't until android phones actually started providing cost effective phones that I bought into them.
But I remember everyone getting excited about itanium and thinking, "This is shit. Why is everyone worked up about it?".
I'd like to know the answer as well; short of the "neat" factor, what's the appeal of having a "smart" device on your wrist with a tiny screen that you have to worry about keeping charged?
Good data, but you were the first to introduce mobile messaging as a requirement. While mobile messaging is a requirement for some use cases, it's not universal. In fact, in some cases it would be seen as a detriment. Specifically, I'm thinking businesses who don't want to leak data on unsecured personal devices, but I'm sure there are others.
You can setup your own jabber server, on your own infrastructure, then run a client that utilizes GnuPG.
Channels are secured via TLS, both between client and server and from server to server. Then the messages themselves are encrypted with GnuPG, so only someone who has your public key can communicate with you. Mind you, this setup isn't as convenient as more traditional services, but that's always been the trade off for secure communications.
Is data entry really the negative stress on the "Time with Patient" stat? I'd guess it's more likely organizations pressuring Drs to treat more patients in a single day; documentation is only a part of that equation.
I'd love to hear from other managers out here, but in my instance I can tell you that the minorities ( and women ) who apply for positions are usually far out numbered by the white male.
Thinking back, even if I hired all the minorities and women I've interviewed ( which would be a disaster, but I digress ), I don't think I could hit any diversity quotas.
Apples to oranges happening here, but I'll bite and point out it's a question of efficiency over talent in this case. It makes more financial sense for some companies to hire low wage imports than local high cost talent.
That's not what your article suggests. Indeed, it doesn't seem to make any conclusions as to why black engineers don't end up in tech firms beyond a hand waving, "Something in the pipeline is broken".
There is no indication that companies are activity discriminating or avoiding minority hires.
In a sane world with rational people, this would mean you'd budget for a new car and buy only what you can afford. Of course, you may very well plan on using leprechaun gold at that point, while we're playing make believe.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people will borrow way too much for way too long, then complain about how it's not their fault. If it happens often enough, the government will get involved, ala "government backed loans"...then it'll really get exciting.
Do you mean that the data shows interviewers valuing knowledge over gender?
Sacrilege! Quick, someone write another piece about the gender gap and hiring practices in technology before anyone notices that interviewers value knowledge over gender.
Reading that, I can't help but feel it's more about some dude writing about his own disillusionment as apposed to society's.
It's always about money, it's always about the economy. *ALWAYS*. VCs let you pretend otherwise for a little while, but ultimately you either a) start making money or b) go out of business.
Obviously we're jaded; were we not, we'd recognize that since the advent of the internet, our ability to share data has revolutionized the world and our own capabilities. There is no real end to this in sight.
Our greatest days are in front of us, not behind, as people truly begin to leverage the communication capabilities of the internet.
Until last year I was rocking an old c2d; I couldn't even tell you it's age, but it was *old*. Was doing just fine; in fact it still is in my daughter's computer.
Definitely a performance plateau, and that's OK. The market has "matured"; anyone who was paying attention knew the heyday of upgrades wouldn't last.
I'm not making a definitive declaration; I could very well be wrong. However, the AC's post has several characteristics which are suggestive of it's status, and regardless; on it's own it's riddled with flawed enough flawed argument techniques as to be useful to demonstrate.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you understand how QR codes would work. You can still do 2 factor, for instance, which negates your concerns about phone security ( which are largely moot anyway as most payment applications require a pin beyond phone security ). Furthermore, phone security is obviously "good enough" now as demonstrated by all the mobile bank apps in existence.
The beauty of QR codes is how simply they are to generate, meaning the applications used would be easy to write and deploy. ie: Any phone model from the last 5 years would be workable.
And no; QR codes wouldn't face the same challenges as chip and pin. Chip and Pin is an overly complicated protocol dependent on specialized niche hardware. That's where it fails. QR codes would only need the hardware that you already carry around in your pocket, or that most ( almost all ) stores already have attached to their POS systems. Everything else is software, which means faster turnaround time for implementation and patches.
I wasn't talking about the security with my "silly system" statement, but the overall package. The terminal design, the overhead on comms, the difficulty for retailers to switch over. It is ridiculous, as designed.
As far as availability of devices...I want you to go to any store, and look at the folks standing in line. What are they doing? Poking around on their smart phone. The tech is here, ready to be used.
I can confirm; every place that has upgraded their equipment has experienced significant slowdowns in the transaction process. It is, frankly, ridiculous. It shouldn't take upwards of a minute to process the transaction where before it took seconds.
On top of all that, it's a silly system. Why don't we use disposable QR codes that they scan for the transaction? That would seem to be a more secure and easier to implement solution; the equipment is already there, it would just require software.
The only thing that interests me is the fitness tracker, and I'm not willing to spend more than 50 bucks to get something like that.
I'm probably the outlier. I have been in the past, although notably, not with smart phones. I recall disappointment with RIM, then with Apple, at the offerings. It wasn't until android phones actually started providing cost effective phones that I bought into them.
But I remember everyone getting excited about itanium and thinking, "This is shit. Why is everyone worked up about it?".
I'd like to know the answer as well; short of the "neat" factor, what's the appeal of having a "smart" device on your wrist with a tiny screen that you have to worry about keeping charged?
Good data, but you were the first to introduce mobile messaging as a requirement. While mobile messaging is a requirement for some use cases, it's not universal. In fact, in some cases it would be seen as a detriment. Specifically, I'm thinking businesses who don't want to leak data on unsecured personal devices, but I'm sure there are others.
You can setup your own jabber server, on your own infrastructure, then run a client that utilizes GnuPG.
Channels are secured via TLS, both between client and server and from server to server. Then the messages themselves are encrypted with GnuPG, so only someone who has your public key can communicate with you. Mind you, this setup isn't as convenient as more traditional services, but that's always been the trade off for secure communications.
Is data entry really the negative stress on the "Time with Patient" stat? I'd guess it's more likely organizations pressuring Drs to treat more patients in a single day; documentation is only a part of that equation.
I'd love to hear from other managers out here, but in my instance I can tell you that the minorities ( and women ) who apply for positions are usually far out numbered by the white male.
Thinking back, even if I hired all the minorities and women I've interviewed ( which would be a disaster, but I digress ), I don't think I could hit any diversity quotas.
Apples to oranges happening here, but I'll bite and point out it's a question of efficiency over talent in this case. It makes more financial sense for some companies to hire low wage imports than local high cost talent.
That's not what your article suggests. Indeed, it doesn't seem to make any conclusions as to why black engineers don't end up in tech firms beyond a hand waving, "Something in the pipeline is broken".
There is no indication that companies are activity discriminating or avoiding minority hires.
I'm of the mind that this is more reflective of the available talent pool rather than any inherent racism.
...We're pleased with our progress to date, but due to the focusing of our phone hardware business...
What an interesting way of saying "ignoring".
Honestly, given how aggressive MS has been with windows10, I'm a little shocked they don't have more devices.
HAHAHAHAA, sorry.
In a sane world with rational people, this would mean you'd budget for a new car and buy only what you can afford. Of course, you may very well plan on using leprechaun gold at that point, while we're playing make believe.
Meanwhile, in the real world, people will borrow way too much for way too long, then complain about how it's not their fault. If it happens often enough, the government will get involved, ala "government backed loans"...then it'll really get exciting.
Do you mean that the data shows interviewers valuing knowledge over gender?
Sacrilege! Quick, someone write another piece about the gender gap and hiring practices in technology before anyone notices that interviewers value knowledge over gender .
Does anyone really feel like they need "Customer Feedback" to understand that deceptive practices are something customers don't want?
Reading that, I can't help but feel it's more about some dude writing about his own disillusionment as apposed to society's.
It's always about money, it's always about the economy. *ALWAYS*. VCs let you pretend otherwise for a little while, but ultimately you either a) start making money or b) go out of business.
Economy, or greed, rules.
The only "smart" in "smart" TVs is the marketing effort behind them which convinces the sheep they want one.
Wake me when you have stairs in your house.
I'm going to throw out a radical suggestion here....
Maybe men legitimately don't like shows that are aimed at women, and they're more vocal about it?
Is that wrong? Are men supposed to simply sit down and keep their opinions to themselves? What's the hope here?
Obviously we're jaded; were we not, we'd recognize that since the advent of the internet, our ability to share data has revolutionized the world and our own capabilities. There is no real end to this in sight.
Our greatest days are in front of us, not behind, as people truly begin to leverage the communication capabilities of the internet.
I don't know what everyone is getting so upset over. I mean, the decals were removed.
Until last year I was rocking an old c2d; I couldn't even tell you it's age, but it was *old*. Was doing just fine; in fact it still is in my daughter's computer.
Definitely a performance plateau, and that's OK. The market has "matured"; anyone who was paying attention knew the heyday of upgrades wouldn't last.
I'm not making a definitive declaration; I could very well be wrong. However, the AC's post has several characteristics which are suggestive of it's status, and regardless; on it's own it's riddled with flawed enough flawed argument techniques as to be useful to demonstrate.
I can't say you're wrong. Of course, the belief that we actually have a choice is amusing; who selects our options, after all?
Scott Adams does a pretty good job explaining this; far better than I could at any rate. http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1...