They probably wanted clear evidence that his claims were false before going to trial. Because if you don't, that's how guilty men walk. They must discredit his story beyond a reasonable doubt.
And since the court system insists on fairness, both sides would have access to the Fitbit data. Both sides would have an opportunity to have experts examine it. Maybe they could agree on a single independent expert, but either way it takes time.
If it takes a year or two to nail a murderer, I see that as time well-spent. If they rush it and he walks on a technicality, they don't get to try again.
Tap to activate it, and the time is either the first or second item displayed. Most people don't want to translate from UTC to local time when they glance at their timepiece.
tight sandboxing and an ask-permissions-for-anything policy for the non-whitelisted stuff
This is the correct answer only if you are a competent IT admin.
But Webroot doesn't sell to enterprises. Or if they do, no one I know has ever bought them. Webroot sells to home users who know jack.
Home users will never have a viable means of addressing malware unless the device, OS, and applications are all managed for them. Expert users despise walled gardens, but they are the only real hope for most of the population.
It is any wonder that the rest of the world looks at the USA and goes 'sheesh?' and they put up with this crap?
I doubt they do that. Europe has licensing requirements for professional engineers, for the most part. It varies by country.
They established an overarching regional body to make it easier for engineers to obtain licensing across national borders.
Only free market fundamentalists in America want an unregulated wasteland where con men can build crap, sell junk medicine, and screw over the general public.
That said, I believe the Oregon board is overreacting and should have issued a warning. It's not like the man lied to get a job, and not all states treat the title of "engineer" the same way. There is no need to fine someone over a misunderstanding that had no meaningful consequences.
But machines shouldn't replace what humans can do, Ma said, but instead the technology community needs to look at making machines do what humans cannot. This would make the machine a "human partner" rather than an opponent.
So we shouldn't replace a human with a robot that is more reliable and productive, and likely cheaper in the long run? Hogwash.
The corporatist culture is backed up by the law. The corporate officers' only legal responsibilities are their fudiciary duty to the shareholders.
Look at what you'll save. You trade wages, annual leave, health insurance, and taxes in exchange for a modest electrical bill and a maintenance contract. Toss out those meatbags and get yourself some literal cogs---as soon as possible.
Developing a partner seems time-consuming, expensive, and risky in comparison. If someone else can build one, great, but we are not waiting for it.
The only way this idea could possibly be better is, wait for it... You buy a partner robot to enhance the productivity of the regular robot that already replaced a human worker.
Now your unnecessary hoard of wealth will accrue even faster, and the dispossed underclass will be even less relevant in any social or political context. The US Constitution may prohibit titles, but these days money is better anyway.
Louisiana consistently elects small-government, anti-EPA, anti-climate Representatives and Senators. Now they want an environmental conservation bailout? They decry federal handouts, and then they turn around begging for help. How about "No".
They cite:
"Decades of saltwater intrusion, subsidence and rising sea levels"
New Orleans couldn't be arsed to maintain their levees, then Hurricane Katrina happened. Now this. Louisiana should change their motto to "The No Foresight State".
This would be awesome, except that my experience is that it's so brittle that it's not worth doing.
Your application, OS, or infrastructure is crap. People do this using X all the time.
Do you not have frequent app crashes when you do this?
The application shouldn't behave any differently than it does when you log into the server locally, for the most part.
This assumes that your windowing system is setup properly and the app doesn't have any special requirements for user input or output. E.g., many 3D acceleration features and touch screens do not work properly with X (or maybe they do now, but they didn't used to).
If I buy a nice house in a nice area, I don't want noisy vacationers and partiers in and out several times a month. Properties frequently rented on Airbnb should be treated as commercial.
If people want to run a bed and breakfast out of their homes, Airbnb should require them to file the local zoning or permits before listing their properties.
Oh, and regarding:
Airbnb's claim that it's just helping the middle class make ends meet
If you can't afford your house without Airbnb, then you can't afford your house. Make better financial decisions next time.
Maybe we need basic financial planning classes in high school if we have a population of adults who cannot plan or budget effectively.
If Google continues this behavior, web sites may shutdown. They need the clicks and the advertising revenue---in general.
Google could keep the "immediate answer" functionality while still supporting the sites that provide that information by splitting the ad revenue that Google received for delivering the results.
I believe the Featured Snippet is valuable to Google's users, and if the company is deriving a benefit from relaying that information then they can deal fairly with their sources.
They were deliberately poaching drivers (or trying to, at the very least). Since they bent rules in order to do that, they are probably going to end up in court.
If they hurt Lyft's business by distracting or poaching drivers, that's pretty much the definition of tortious interference.
Without the details and a team of lawyers, it's impossible to say that Uber broke the law. But it certainly sounds that way, their supposed motive seems rather straightforward and reasonable.
Microsoft has offered pre-release patches and even Windows source code to enterprises for years. I assume these organizations will get patch notes as they always have.
It is not available to anyone, but I imagine the US government qualifies. You generally need to be large enough that the accompanying NDA will hurt a lot if you disclose their code or vulnerabilities.
Your comment confuses the issues and deserves to sit at 0 or -1.
A searchable database is much more useful than a collection of individual bulletins that, at best, cross-reference each other.
It looks like a some people are getting angry about the headline without realizing that it is being replaced with a modern, searchable interface.
On a related note, the headline sucks. I guarantee 99% of people associate "killing off" with complete elimination of the functionality, compared to words like updating, reworking, or revamping---which imply the functionality remains in a new form. I do expect editors to understand the nuances of the words they use.
If you put your data on their device, they can copy it at any time. At that point, it's a question of trusting not only the company policy but also the staff with privileged access---most of whom you will never meet or even know by name.
A lot of places are doing HTTPS decryption and packet inspection at the perimeter, so even "secure" or "private" connections on these devices are not trustworthy. Any privacy you have is either an illusion or a convenience at best.
The bottom line: If you're not OK with it being printed and handed out, don't put it on an employer-owned asset.
If you actually are smart enough to be a doctor or an engineer, there are many opportunities for free or reduced tuition
I know enough people with student loans in those fields to call this out as bullshit.
If smart, capable people from good homes cannot get this "free or reduced tuition" you mention, then I'm inclined to believe there just isn't enough of it.
These guys are neither spendthrift nor stupid; they would have no loans if the option was readily available. If anything, engineers have it easy with student debt, as they do not need graduate degrees to start working---even if they require a 5th year in undergrad, as is becoming common.
Our new doctors in the US start working with ~$170K in student loans on average.
Americans may pay less taxes, but we also get far fewer services.
The closest we have to retirement pensions is Social Security, which is a laughable amount of money. In other countries, you can retire without dedicating a chunk of salary to a gambling scheme---the ubiquitous 401K.
We have no public health care, so we pay higher costs out of our own salaries.
Our public education system is woefully underfunded, and higher education is very costly. It would be nice if everyone smart enough to be a doctor or an engineer could just decide to go to school. Who knows?---it might even help with the health care costs and H1B issues if students didn't have to mortgage their futures just for a chance at those professions.
Let's not forget the embarrassing state of our infrastructure. If a bridge collapses, maybe the media frenzy will force the politicians to do something. Until then, they can rust, rot, or erode away.
You can NOT have it both ways with mass hypocrisy as the starting ante.
Says you, and you alone. The case was sent back to determine whether or not this is true.
The court will have to choose whether it rules in a way that applies to all sites with moderation or just this particular moderation system.
Even then, there will be appeals---on this case or a future case---until an appellate court or the Supreme Court decides exactly what qualifies for safe harbor.
Eventually, if these lawsuits like these continue, the courts will have a comprehensive set of case law that indicates what kinds of moderation retain (or lose) safe harbor protection.
Your bluster about how it cannot be "both ways with mass hypocrisy" is both irrelevant and laughable. The courts will hash out exactly when safe harbor applies, and Congress can amend the law if that interpretation is not to their liking.
Every community has standards. If your behavior or opinions are utterly rejected, you probably ought to find another community.
Sometimes a lone actor can change a community for the better, but most trolls and outcasts are rejected for being odious, disrepectful, or ignorant.
Meta-moderation is important to prevent abuses, which some sites notably lack. I have seen brief instances of unmoderated commentary on the internet though, and even bad moderation is better than that.
This would worry me if I had something on my phone worth protecting...
Then, quite simply, this feature was not designed to fulfill your requirements.
the ability to repair a device is far more important to me than incredibly high security
If repairability is important, then Apple products will not be ideal purchases. Apple has a 10-20 year track record of being difficult to repair, and they are trending away from what you want.
Building disposable products has been a dream for many manufacturers, and Apple is doing everything it can to get there. When this desire dovetails with a marketable feature, of course they will choose this route. It's the kind of bad-but-expected behavior you expect to see in a free market without legal consumer protections.
It is the user's device, so the user should decide whether a sensor is trusted.
Apple is selling a device with a locked bootloader device, a proprietary OS, and a walled-garden app store. At what point is the user given much choice about trusting Apple (in the cryptographic sense)?
In order to support 3rd-party sensors, both the OS and the security enclave would need new functionality. The user would have to authenticate with a passcode or Apple ID to approve the new hardware. Apple may never develop this functionality, and it is entirely their choice as a private company.
If you do not like this model, do not purchase the product.
Slashdot Mirror
It hints at the motive. Based on that single word, I assume he was headed for divorce and humiliation.
They probably wanted clear evidence that his claims were false before going to trial. Because if you don't, that's how guilty men walk. They must discredit his story beyond a reasonable doubt.
And since the court system insists on fairness, both sides would have access to the Fitbit data. Both sides would have an opportunity to have experts examine it. Maybe they could agree on a single independent expert, but either way it takes time.
If it takes a year or two to nail a murderer, I see that as time well-spent. If they rush it and he walks on a technicality, they don't get to try again.
Except the user usually checks the time on it.
Tap to activate it, and the time is either the first or second item displayed. Most people don't want to translate from UTC to local time when they glance at their timepiece.
tight sandboxing and an ask-permissions-for-anything policy for the non-whitelisted stuff
This is the correct answer only if you are a competent IT admin.
But Webroot doesn't sell to enterprises. Or if they do, no one I know has ever bought them. Webroot sells to home users who know jack.
Home users will never have a viable means of addressing malware unless the device, OS, and applications are all managed for them. Expert users despise walled gardens, but they are the only real hope for most of the population.
It is any wonder that the rest of the world looks at the USA and goes 'sheesh?' and they put up with this crap?
I doubt they do that. Europe has licensing requirements for professional engineers, for the most part. It varies by country.
They established an overarching regional body to make it easier for engineers to obtain licensing across national borders.
Only free market fundamentalists in America want an unregulated wasteland where con men can build crap, sell junk medicine, and screw over the general public.
That said, I believe the Oregon board is overreacting and should have issued a warning. It's not like the man lied to get a job, and not all states treat the title of "engineer" the same way. There is no need to fine someone over a misunderstanding that had no meaningful consequences.
Unless this phenomenon is relevant to climate, nothing changes.
If it is relevant, then all of the models will be refined.
It could also be a "new" phenomem, in the sense that it only occurs under certain conditions which have only arisen (or returned) recently.
But go ahead and blast away at your little pet peeve without a modicum of thought. Actual, reasonable scientists will sort it out in time.
But machines shouldn't replace what humans can do, Ma said, but instead the technology community needs to look at making machines do what humans cannot. This would make the machine a "human partner" rather than an opponent.
So we shouldn't replace a human with a robot that is more reliable and productive, and likely cheaper in the long run? Hogwash.
The corporatist culture is backed up by the law. The corporate officers' only legal responsibilities are their fudiciary duty to the shareholders.
Look at what you'll save. You trade wages, annual leave, health insurance, and taxes in exchange for a modest electrical bill and a maintenance contract. Toss out those meatbags and get yourself some literal cogs---as soon as possible.
Developing a partner seems time-consuming, expensive, and risky in comparison. If someone else can build one, great, but we are not waiting for it.
The only way this idea could possibly be better is, wait for it... You buy a partner robot to enhance the productivity of the regular robot that already replaced a human worker.
Now your unnecessary hoard of wealth will accrue even faster, and the dispossed underclass will be even less relevant in any social or political context. The US Constitution may prohibit titles, but these days money is better anyway.
Just the kind of mealy-mouthed non-apology I expect from a modern CEO.
This guy is going places.
Louisiana consistently elects small-government, anti-EPA, anti-climate Representatives and Senators. Now they want an environmental conservation bailout? They decry federal handouts, and then they turn around begging for help. How about "No".
They cite:
"Decades of saltwater intrusion, subsidence and rising sea levels"
Yet, they ousted their only politician who even pretended to care about the environment and replaced her with Cassidy, whose policies will only hasten that outcome.
New Orleans couldn't be arsed to maintain their levees, then Hurricane Katrina happened. Now this. Louisiana should change their motto to "The No Foresight State".
This would be awesome, except that my experience is that it's so brittle that it's not worth doing.
Your application, OS, or infrastructure is crap. People do this using X all the time.
Do you not have frequent app crashes when you do this?
The application shouldn't behave any differently than it does when you log into the server locally, for the most part.
This assumes that your windowing system is setup properly and the app doesn't have any special requirements for user input or output. E.g., many 3D acceleration features and touch screens do not work properly with X (or maybe they do now, but they didn't used to).
If I buy a nice house in a nice area, I don't want noisy vacationers and partiers in and out several times a month. Properties frequently rented on Airbnb should be treated as commercial.
If people want to run a bed and breakfast out of their homes, Airbnb should require them to file the local zoning or permits before listing their properties.
Oh, and regarding:
Airbnb's claim that it's just helping the middle class make ends meet
If you can't afford your house without Airbnb, then you can't afford your house. Make better financial decisions next time.
Maybe we need basic financial planning classes in high school if we have a population of adults who cannot plan or budget effectively.
The H1B program has been abused for years, and almost any improvement is welcome.
Given the disastrous Executive Orders and ACA reform, however, I am not going to get excited just yet.
I want to see a final draft with commentary by experts---probably labor lawyers---before I take this effort seriously.
If Google continues this behavior, web sites may shutdown. They need the clicks and the advertising revenue---in general.
Google could keep the "immediate answer" functionality while still supporting the sites that provide that information by splitting the ad revenue that Google received for delivering the results.
I believe the Featured Snippet is valuable to Google's users, and if the company is deriving a benefit from relaying that information then they can deal fairly with their sources.
They were deliberately poaching drivers (or trying to, at the very least). Since they bent rules in order to do that, they are probably going to end up in court.
If they hurt Lyft's business by distracting or poaching drivers, that's pretty much the definition of tortious interference.
Without the details and a team of lawyers, it's impossible to say that Uber broke the law. But it certainly sounds that way, their supposed motive seems rather straightforward and reasonable.
Microsoft has offered pre-release patches and even Windows source code to enterprises for years. I assume these organizations will get patch notes as they always have.
It is not available to anyone, but I imagine the US government qualifies. You generally need to be large enough that the accompanying NDA will hurt a lot if you disclose their code or vulnerabilities.
Your comment confuses the issues and deserves to sit at 0 or -1.
A searchable database is much more useful than a collection of individual bulletins that, at best, cross-reference each other.
It looks like a some people are getting angry about the headline without realizing that it is being replaced with a modern, searchable interface.
On a related note, the headline sucks. I guarantee 99% of people associate "killing off" with complete elimination of the functionality, compared to words like updating, reworking, or revamping---which imply the functionality remains in a new form. I do expect editors to understand the nuances of the words they use.
You need certain long-term guarantees when you're spending billions of dollars on infrastructure that uses the spectrum.
The allocation is important to phone and tablet manufacturers, too, as they must include appropriate antennas in their devices.
I agree with imposing reasonable restrictions on how the bandwidth is used, but you cannot realistically implement short-term allocation.
If you put your data on their device, they can copy it at any time. At that point, it's a question of trusting not only the company policy but also the staff with privileged access---most of whom you will never meet or even know by name.
A lot of places are doing HTTPS decryption and packet inspection at the perimeter, so even "secure" or "private" connections on these devices are not trustworthy. Any privacy you have is either an illusion or a convenience at best.
The bottom line: If you're not OK with it being printed and handed out, don't put it on an employer-owned asset.
If you actually are smart enough to be a doctor or an engineer, there are many opportunities for free or reduced tuition
I know enough people with student loans in those fields to call this out as bullshit.
If smart, capable people from good homes cannot get this "free or reduced tuition" you mention, then I'm inclined to believe there just isn't enough of it.
These guys are neither spendthrift nor stupid; they would have no loans if the option was readily available. If anything, engineers have it easy with student debt, as they do not need graduate degrees to start working---even if they require a 5th year in undergrad, as is becoming common.
Our new doctors in the US start working with ~$170K in student loans on average.
Americans may pay less taxes, but we also get far fewer services.
The closest we have to retirement pensions is Social Security, which is a laughable amount of money. In other countries, you can retire without dedicating a chunk of salary to a gambling scheme---the ubiquitous 401K.
We have no public health care, so we pay higher costs out of our own salaries.
Our public education system is woefully underfunded, and higher education is very costly. It would be nice if everyone smart enough to be a doctor or an engineer could just decide to go to school. Who knows?---it might even help with the health care costs and H1B issues if students didn't have to mortgage their futures just for a chance at those professions.
Let's not forget the embarrassing state of our infrastructure. If a bridge collapses, maybe the media frenzy will force the politicians to do something. Until then, they can rust, rot, or erode away.
You can NOT have it both ways with mass hypocrisy as the starting ante.
Says you, and you alone. The case was sent back to determine whether or not this is true.
The court will have to choose whether it rules in a way that applies to all sites with moderation or just this particular moderation system.
Even then, there will be appeals---on this case or a future case---until an appellate court or the Supreme Court decides exactly what qualifies for safe harbor.
Eventually, if these lawsuits like these continue, the courts will have a comprehensive set of case law that indicates what kinds of moderation retain (or lose) safe harbor protection.
Your bluster about how it cannot be "both ways with mass hypocrisy" is both irrelevant and laughable. The courts will hash out exactly when safe harbor applies, and Congress can amend the law if that interpretation is not to their liking.
Every community has standards. If your behavior or opinions are utterly rejected, you probably ought to find another community.
Sometimes a lone actor can change a community for the better, but most trolls and outcasts are rejected for being odious, disrepectful, or ignorant.
Meta-moderation is important to prevent abuses, which some sites notably lack. I have seen brief instances of unmoderated commentary on the internet though, and even bad moderation is better than that.
Imagine if Twitter were held responsible for the terrorist shit they allow?
Assuming the terrorists intentionally distribute those videos on every available medium, there would be no problem.
The DMCA deals with copyright, and if the content owners do not complain then there are no legal issues at all.
It would have to be the original video, however. A newscast which shows the video during a segment is owned by the studio.
This would worry me if I had something on my phone worth protecting...
Then, quite simply, this feature was not designed to fulfill your requirements.
the ability to repair a device is far more important to me than incredibly high security
If repairability is important, then Apple products will not be ideal purchases. Apple has a 10-20 year track record of being difficult to repair, and they are trending away from what you want.
Building disposable products has been a dream for many manufacturers, and Apple is doing everything it can to get there. When this desire dovetails with a marketable feature, of course they will choose this route. It's the kind of bad-but-expected behavior you expect to see in a free market without legal consumer protections.
It is the user's device, so the user should decide whether a sensor is trusted.
Apple is selling a device with a locked bootloader device, a proprietary OS, and a walled-garden app store. At what point is the user given much choice about trusting Apple (in the cryptographic sense)?
In order to support 3rd-party sensors, both the OS and the security enclave would need new functionality. The user would have to authenticate with a passcode or Apple ID to approve the new hardware. Apple may never develop this functionality, and it is entirely their choice as a private company.
If you do not like this model, do not purchase the product.