But it also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.
That explains why the sheriffs department wanted them, they didn't want incriminating evidence coming out. But if we walk away from our servers, they're not going to be able to get into them. If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later. If they arrested you for doing your job, then sue them later. Oddly, in this case you'd have the backing of the rest of the county board and the Superior Court. Seizing our computers wouldn't get them anything. I feel good about that but what happened in this case?
If they're Windows servers it shouldn't be too hard to crack them, right? I haven't used Windows servers since Server 2003, you could crack those. Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.
Some say taking money could draw unwanted scrutiny of business practices and compensation, as seen with automakers and banks that have taken government bailouts.
Ha! You mean like finding out how profitable broadband really is and how that caps and traffic shaping would be largely unnecessary if the carriers spent the money doing the upgrade? Money we all know they have. Or would that be finding out how a few people at the top of the corporate pile are enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else? Extracting revenue without adding any real value and justifying it by saying their compensation packages are "in line" with industry norms?
Hard to figure out which one of those topics they're not interested in having become public knowledge. It would probably be wise to select "All of the above". And probably a couple more we don't know about.
Maybe we need a public broadband option? The our Congresscritters could start raking in millions of lobbyist money from the major carriers. It would give those hordes of fat, old people screaming at public health care meetings a new opportunity to get free bus rides and box lunches. And then they could accuse Obama of trying to take over the internets.
This means, you can be forced to do self-incrimination.
Better five years for refusing to decrypt data that whatever the penalty is for child porn or handing over the bribe records of the local mafia. Here someone convicted of a crime like that would do, maybe, 9 months before getting probation. Beats being on the sex offender list for 25 years. Don't know if the Brits have the same sort of registry, but that wouldn't surprise me.
Not only that, but you could play the martyr card and claim your refusal was based on principle, not that you had anything to hide. You'd be hero instead of a pedo-zero.
Actually, it sort of is an outrage. If that school is taking federal money or students are getting government backed student loans to go out and preach religious dogma as some kind of pop science, I do find that a bit outrageous and a little offensive.
If it's all private money and students are paying their own way, that's a little less offensive. Still, it borders on a fusion of religion and politics. They're not spreading their faith, they're spreading some militant concoction of politics and religious science, including a straw man opposition that they portray as wanting to kill people.
Looking at it from the perspective of a believer, this isn't faith, it's apostate Protestantism trying to justify a political jihad. Probably no surprise their rhetoric sounds eerily similar to some of what's being taught by militant Muslim scholars.
Can we please give the government a little credit when they at least try to start trying to do the right thing? Is that too much trouble?
Would the FTC even have thought of anything like this during the last administration? Personally, after a decade of corporate anal rampage, I'm happy to see consumer protection starting to make a comeback. At least it's a step in the right direction.
His explanation for the sharp decline is that 'the promise of the post-industrial society has been realized.'
Evolution and transformation in technology doesn't happen on a linear time line. It goes in streaks, followed by times where the previously disruptive technologies retrench and normalize. That lasts until the next transformative technology comes along.
Just because we're in a phase of technology normalization doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. I think he's taking kind of a short view of tech history.
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content.
You go, Rupert. Making Faux News a subscription site. Thank you! And, hey, don't forget to jack your rates on cable providers, too. I'd really stick it to those freeloaders.
This is one of those cases where the pharmaceutical companies should be held accountable over and above the slap on the wrist the FDA will give them...
Then there are insurance companies hauling bus loads of loud, fat people to public meetings on health care. Industry busy trying to undermine public discussion and fudge research results. Big oil has been doing the same thing only a lot longer. When I was doing research for DoE they were paying for research later used to undermine the conservation programs put in place in the wake of the '74 oil embargo. And it worked. Between the push by the oil companies and the Saudis increasing production, DoE's direction on oil policy was changing rapidly by '82. Less than 10 years after lines at the gas pump people were buying vehicles the size of a Bangladesh apartment.
There's a fine line between engaging in freedom of speech and manipulation. Actually, it's not all that fine. At some point we're going to need to take a hard look at whether the artificial person that is a corporation has the same right to free speech as an individual. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, corporations have a major advantage in getting their free speech packaged and delivered to market. Then there are efforts, like this one, of deliberate deception. Where are the consequences? Why aren't there stunning, quarterly number tanking, breath-taking fines for this kind of behavior? If one of us got caught doing something similar, we could face fraud charges.
It'll just force advertisers back to an older style of ads. Back in the B&W days of TV, it wasn't unusual to have program sponsorships with product placement embedded in the media. There weren't any commercials as we know them today, the talent would switch to talking about the product, then go back to the script.
I could see the same thing in new age media. Text based ads inside the article, not being injected from someplace like pointroll or doubleclick. It's not the ads people mind as much as the blaring, billboard-style, obnoxious Flash ads. Or the latest excuse us while we take over your screen for 15 seconds.
This article was sponsored by Pepsi would be a lot more effective than blasting banner ads that half of users never see or "take over" ads that irritate the daylights out of the viewer.
This is the best idea he's ever had and the timing couldn't be better. After watching his philosophy bring this nation to the brink of ruin, watching the party he was backing financially get crushed in the last election, now he shrewdly targets his weapon on his financial foot and cocks the hammer.
You're a sly one, Rupert. Have to say I never saw that move coming. For some strange reason I assumed his lack of judgment would be limited to arenas outside business.
Happy to admit I was wrong. Shooter on the line! Fire when ready!
Microsoft will pay Yahoo $50 million a year for three years...
That's about what Marisa Mayer spends on dry cleaning. Okay, not really, but that's a rounding error for Google.
Microsoft and Yahoo teaming up on search reminds me of a fraternity rush when the dorks end up clinging together for survival in the corner. I just can't see anything compelling coming out of this union. Microsoft's online services are clumsy and unattractive, they're always trying to tie it to their desktop OS. And Yahoo...meh. What services do they have that Google doesn't do better? Google has Voice and Labs, are always coming out with something new, pushing into new product areas. Yahoo barely keeps up with what they have.
It's not just posturing for the SEC this time. Talked to one of our vendors back east this afternoon and his mom liked his netbook so much he bought her one, then his dad wanted one, then another one for his step-mom. That's bad news for Microsoft for two reasons: One, Linux really is competitive on low-end hardware. The combination of Linux, Gmail, GoogleDocs and online services gives netbooks functionality that makes the OS less significant.
And, two, Microsoft can't demand their normal margin on a netbook OS. The cost of the unit is so low MS is forced to price their product lower. That's hurting revenues and that trend will only continue to accelerate. Windows 7 will run on netbooks, but not particularly well. Windows Mobile isn't going to gain them any market share and they can't sell XP on netbooks indefinitely.
The netbook trend caught MS flat-footed and they threw XP at it to fill the gap while they scramble around to try and find a solution. But there isn't one this time. Microsoft built their market at the top end of the scale, not in the appliance market. Their software isn't made to run on low-end hardware, they have no appliance market strategy.
This time, I think they're entirely justified of being afraid of Linux.
i DO maintain a separate backup but everything goes on google. the bar is also fine with it.
The whole discussion is based on a false premise. Anyone sending unencrypted email can have it duplicated, read, summarized and indexed, both body and attachments, at potentially every relay between the sender and destination. So not using Gmail only provides a more robust false sense of security.
We use Gmail and GoogleApps at the office without any problems and most of our customers are doctors.
Unless someone has information I don't know about, the online version of Office will have the same questions hanging over it. It's a non-issue. The people working for Google are not stupid. They know getting caught browsing docs would gut their reputation in the market, virtually overnight. Let one leak get tracked back to Google.
You're not responsible for someone spying on your business, whether that spy slips a trojan on to your laptop or network or taps into your Google Docs at one of their data centers. You're the lawyer, wouldn't Google Docs provide a reasonable expectation of privacy? Someone would have to prove you were negligent using GoogleDocs. That would be a tough case.
...is the same thing that exposes their stupidity.
I think that was the whole point to the exercise...missed by some above. The content provider trying to extort people into paying license fees they may not need. This exercise demonstrates that the content provider in question can't positively identify their own material or material that they can't legitimately claim as intellectual property. They can't conclusively back up the need for anyone to license a particular piece. They're ignoring the context, intended use and trying to rewrite fair use by their own definition.
This exercise exposes that it's a scam, an online shake down. I think it actually works against their IP claims.
If this was an academic study, then the raw data was (or should have been) typified (anonymized).
Yeah, but how hard would it be for the computing power of IBM to hang real names on a large amount of pattern data? Maybe they could just line up the typified data with say...their own cellular bills. It wouldn't be that difficult to start attaching employee names to the anonymous data. Just like code breaking. The more data points you can fill in, the more real names you assign with a high degree of confidence.
That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier.
I keep my chickens in tractor pens and move them every day so they always have fresh, clean grass. They don't get any antibiotics or growth hormones. The eggs are noticeably different than those available commercially both in color and taste. And the chickens that end up in the oven have a texture and taste that's very different from the anemic lumps of soggy, fatty meat that passes for chicken at Wal-Mart. Those are birds raised in commercial barns that reek of ammonia miles away and rarely even see the light of day. Instead of cows we opted for goats. Grass fed, likewise no antibiotics or hormones. Besides being walking composters, they keep the lawnmower in the garage and supply lean, delicious meat.
In that context I don't consider what's available in the store an "improvement" by any definition of that word.
The old ways sometimes.. correction, usually aren't the best way.
Maybe if the discussion is limited to vegetable produce the differences would be less noticeable. If you assume that chemical weed control and pesticide residue are insignificant, then the health benefits of organic verses large scale commercial produce would be difficult to detect.
I think a healthy diet, rich in fruits, nuts and vegetables will be better for your overall health regardless of their organic pedigree. But I would disagree that modern scaling techniques in meat production are really an improvement.
No, you should have to pay whatever the contract, which you signed voluntarily...
That argument is a codependent enabler for corporate abuses. If all the cell providers are using basically the same language in their contracts, consumers have no effective choice. Try to find a brokerage account that doesn't make you waive your rights to seek redress in the courts. They don't exist, because they're all using the binding arbitration clauses in their contracts. Consumers have no effective choice.
And, always in the background, some pompous, know-it-all dick saying, "If you don't like it, don't sign the contract." If that was the case, you wouldn't have a cell phone, telephone, car, bank account, investment account, 401(K) or internet connection. When companies collude on contract language, they are functioning as a cartel not free market players. When you don't have a choice, it's not a free market.
Stop sticking up for abusive behavior, makes you look like a tool.
Woke up this am to find my token Winders box had rebooted overnight. Luckily I only use it as a weather station. I would have been pissed to wake up and find a work environment automatically rebooted. I save my work but sometimes I'll be in the middle of a project and it takes a lot of time to restore the workspace.
The LFB has been testing the units since last year and the machines are primarily used in fires involving acetylene canisters. The group commander for hazardous materials and environmental protection with the LFB says that the robots have cut the time to resolve these potential hazards from 24 hours to 3. From the article: 'Three years ago we were shutting down parts of London for over 24 hours every other week.
Apparently there are a lot of rogue acetylene canisters catching fire in London on a regular basis. I weld as a hobby and in all the welding shops I've been in, in all the classes, I've never seen an acetylene tank go off. And with all the welders I've ever met in all those places, maybe one has ever seen a tank go off. Is it something with your gauges over there? The tank construction? Seems to happen a lot more there than it does here.
Acetylene is nothing you want to dick with. If it gets away from you, then I'd sure want a robot going in to deal with it.
You know when some company with a totally crap product starts looking at their patent portfolio for survival...you know, like SCO...that they don't have much going for them. Instead of putting that time and money into making their products better, they put their best efforts into litigation. You know that's a red flag for any company.
Can we please trade eastern district of Texas back to Mexico? That court is a plague on business and an anchor on innovation.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
... but thanks to an Apple rejection of the natively developed app, it's a web app.
Breaking iTunes compatibility on Linux and Blackberry and now they're crippling a Google app. What up? I'm sure there's a strategy here, I just can't see it.
I don't think trying to Balkanize their services and regulate iPhone users is going to ultimately be good for them or their user base. The iPhone user demographic may not have the same brand loyalty as the Apple faithful.
Beyond that I've always been impressed with Apple's execution...until recently. Instead of their usual suave and polish, always being ahead of the curve in packaging and style, lately they seem to be heavy handed and bumbling around a bit. Reactive instead of their usual proactive. Being reactive and heavy handed reminds me of Microsoft and even though I'm not a Mac fan myself I really appreciate what Apple did well.
I hope they right themselves and implement a service strategy with the same quality they've shown in other areas. If they start trying to make iPhones the AOL of cellular services, then Google and other providers are going to out-maneuver them with superior service offerings on a wider range of devices.
Maybe it's some flashback to the OS wars. Instead of a big market share and being the dominant player in the field, Apple is setting themselves up for a smaller but more loyal market share. Which could be either good or bad depending on how you feel about them tying their OS to their hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
But it also is a server and e-mail platform for several county agencies, including the Sheriff's and County Attorney's offices and the Superior Court.
That explains why the sheriffs department wanted them, they didn't want incriminating evidence coming out. But if we walk away from our servers, they're not going to be able to get into them. If they demanded admin passwords, I would have demanded a warrant. Arrest or not, that's a fight you can have later. If they arrested you for doing your job, then sue them later. Oddly, in this case you'd have the backing of the rest of the county board and the Superior Court. Seizing our computers wouldn't get them anything. I feel good about that but what happened in this case?
If they're Windows servers it shouldn't be too hard to crack them, right? I haven't used Windows servers since Server 2003, you could crack those. Is it much harder now? Especially when you have access to the hardware.
Some say taking money could draw unwanted scrutiny of business practices and compensation, as seen with automakers and banks that have taken government bailouts.
Ha! You mean like finding out how profitable broadband really is and how that caps and traffic shaping would be largely unnecessary if the carriers spent the money doing the upgrade? Money we all know they have. Or would that be finding out how a few people at the top of the corporate pile are enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else? Extracting revenue without adding any real value and justifying it by saying their compensation packages are "in line" with industry norms?
Hard to figure out which one of those topics they're not interested in having become public knowledge. It would probably be wise to select "All of the above". And probably a couple more we don't know about.
Maybe we need a public broadband option? The our Congresscritters could start raking in millions of lobbyist money from the major carriers. It would give those hordes of fat, old people screaming at public health care meetings a new opportunity to get free bus rides and box lunches. And then they could accuse Obama of trying to take over the internets.
You could measure it with a stop watch. Pretty rare to find such a serious flaw in Linux.
In other news, I noticed my Windows box automatically restarted last night. Your computer has recently been updated. No kidding.
This means, you can be forced to do self-incrimination.
Better five years for refusing to decrypt data that whatever the penalty is for child porn or handing over the bribe records of the local mafia. Here someone convicted of a crime like that would do, maybe, 9 months before getting probation. Beats being on the sex offender list for 25 years. Don't know if the Brits have the same sort of registry, but that wouldn't surprise me.
Not only that, but you could play the martyr card and claim your refusal was based on principle, not that you had anything to hide. You'd be hero instead of a pedo-zero.
'The Earth's period of habitability is nearly over on a cosmological timescale...
Last call.
This is an outrage!
Actually, it sort of is an outrage. If that school is taking federal money or students are getting government backed student loans to go out and preach religious dogma as some kind of pop science, I do find that a bit outrageous and a little offensive.
If it's all private money and students are paying their own way, that's a little less offensive. Still, it borders on a fusion of religion and politics. They're not spreading their faith, they're spreading some militant concoction of politics and religious science, including a straw man opposition that they portray as wanting to kill people.
Looking at it from the perspective of a believer, this isn't faith, it's apostate Protestantism trying to justify a political jihad. Probably no surprise their rhetoric sounds eerily similar to some of what's being taught by militant Muslim scholars.
Can we please give the government a little credit when they at least try to start trying to do the right thing? Is that too much trouble?
Would the FTC even have thought of anything like this during the last administration? Personally, after a decade of corporate anal rampage, I'm happy to see consumer protection starting to make a comeback. At least it's a step in the right direction.
His explanation for the sharp decline is that 'the promise of the post-industrial society has been realized.'
Evolution and transformation in technology doesn't happen on a linear time line. It goes in streaks, followed by times where the previously disruptive technologies retrench and normalize. That lasts until the next transformative technology comes along.
Just because we're in a phase of technology normalization doesn't mean it's going to stay that way. I think he's taking kind of a short view of tech history.
I love this gem in the article:
Moreover, he said that it won't be only the newspaper sites that adopt this change; foxnews.com, he said, will also start charging for content.
You go, Rupert. Making Faux News a subscription site. Thank you! And, hey, don't forget to jack your rates on cable providers, too. I'd really stick it to those freeloaders.
Its nothing new, but it might surprise those who believe in pure, not-revenue-generating OSS. It's how the free for user projects are financed.
I have no philosophical problem with any OSS organization making money on their product. I think the issues here are disclosure and opt-in by default.
Doing it is fine. Doing it and not telling anyone, that's not like Canonical. Very out of character for them and I expect them to respond accordingly.
This is one of those cases where the pharmaceutical companies should be held accountable over and above the slap on the wrist the FDA will give them...
Then there are insurance companies hauling bus loads of loud, fat people to public meetings on health care. Industry busy trying to undermine public discussion and fudge research results. Big oil has been doing the same thing only a lot longer. When I was doing research for DoE they were paying for research later used to undermine the conservation programs put in place in the wake of the '74 oil embargo. And it worked. Between the push by the oil companies and the Saudis increasing production, DoE's direction on oil policy was changing rapidly by '82. Less than 10 years after lines at the gas pump people were buying vehicles the size of a Bangladesh apartment.
There's a fine line between engaging in freedom of speech and manipulation. Actually, it's not all that fine. At some point we're going to need to take a hard look at whether the artificial person that is a corporation has the same right to free speech as an individual. Unless you're fabulously wealthy, corporations have a major advantage in getting their free speech packaged and delivered to market. Then there are efforts, like this one, of deliberate deception. Where are the consequences? Why aren't there stunning, quarterly number tanking, breath-taking fines for this kind of behavior? If one of us got caught doing something similar, we could face fraud charges.
It'll just force advertisers back to an older style of ads. Back in the B&W days of TV, it wasn't unusual to have program sponsorships with product placement embedded in the media. There weren't any commercials as we know them today, the talent would switch to talking about the product, then go back to the script.
I could see the same thing in new age media. Text based ads inside the article, not being injected from someplace like pointroll or doubleclick. It's not the ads people mind as much as the blaring, billboard-style, obnoxious Flash ads. Or the latest excuse us while we take over your screen for 15 seconds.
This article was sponsored by Pepsi would be a lot more effective than blasting banner ads that half of users never see or "take over" ads that irritate the daylights out of the viewer.
This is the best idea he's ever had and the timing couldn't be better. After watching his philosophy bring this nation to the brink of ruin, watching the party he was backing financially get crushed in the last election, now he shrewdly targets his weapon on his financial foot and cocks the hammer.
You're a sly one, Rupert. Have to say I never saw that move coming. For some strange reason I assumed his lack of judgment would be limited to arenas outside business.
Happy to admit I was wrong. Shooter on the line! Fire when ready!
Microsoft will pay Yahoo $50 million a year for three years...
That's about what Marisa Mayer spends on dry cleaning. Okay, not really, but that's a rounding error for Google.
Microsoft and Yahoo teaming up on search reminds me of a fraternity rush when the dorks end up clinging together for survival in the corner. I just can't see anything compelling coming out of this union. Microsoft's online services are clumsy and unattractive, they're always trying to tie it to their desktop OS. And Yahoo...meh. What services do they have that Google doesn't do better? Google has Voice and Labs, are always coming out with something new, pushing into new product areas. Yahoo barely keeps up with what they have.
This is the strategic partnership to nowhere.
It's not just posturing for the SEC this time. Talked to one of our vendors back east this afternoon and his mom liked his netbook so much he bought her one, then his dad wanted one, then another one for his step-mom. That's bad news for Microsoft for two reasons: One, Linux really is competitive on low-end hardware. The combination of Linux, Gmail, GoogleDocs and online services gives netbooks functionality that makes the OS less significant.
And, two, Microsoft can't demand their normal margin on a netbook OS. The cost of the unit is so low MS is forced to price their product lower. That's hurting revenues and that trend will only continue to accelerate. Windows 7 will run on netbooks, but not particularly well. Windows Mobile isn't going to gain them any market share and they can't sell XP on netbooks indefinitely.
The netbook trend caught MS flat-footed and they threw XP at it to fill the gap while they scramble around to try and find a solution. But there isn't one this time. Microsoft built their market at the top end of the scale, not in the appliance market. Their software isn't made to run on low-end hardware, they have no appliance market strategy.
This time, I think they're entirely justified of being afraid of Linux.
i DO maintain a separate backup but everything goes on google. the bar is also fine with it.
The whole discussion is based on a false premise. Anyone sending unencrypted email can have it duplicated, read, summarized and indexed, both body and attachments, at potentially every relay between the sender and destination. So not using Gmail only provides a more robust false sense of security.
We use Gmail and GoogleApps at the office without any problems and most of our customers are doctors.
Unless someone has information I don't know about, the online version of Office will have the same questions hanging over it. It's a non-issue. The people working for Google are not stupid. They know getting caught browsing docs would gut their reputation in the market, virtually overnight. Let one leak get tracked back to Google.
You're not responsible for someone spying on your business, whether that spy slips a trojan on to your laptop or network or taps into your Google Docs at one of their data centers. You're the lawyer, wouldn't Google Docs provide a reasonable expectation of privacy? Someone would have to prove you were negligent using GoogleDocs. That would be a tough case.
I think that was the whole point to the exercise...missed by some above. The content provider trying to extort people into paying license fees they may not need. This exercise demonstrates that the content provider in question can't positively identify their own material or material that they can't legitimately claim as intellectual property. They can't conclusively back up the need for anyone to license a particular piece. They're ignoring the context, intended use and trying to rewrite fair use by their own definition.
This exercise exposes that it's a scam, an online shake down. I think it actually works against their IP claims.
If this was an academic study, then the raw data was (or should have been) typified (anonymized).
Yeah, but how hard would it be for the computing power of IBM to hang real names on a large amount of pattern data? Maybe they could just line up the typified data with say...their own cellular bills. It wouldn't be that difficult to start attaching employee names to the anonymous data. Just like code breaking. The more data points you can fill in, the more real names you assign with a high degree of confidence.
That is technological improvement, so there's no really any reason why technologically made or improved food would be more riskier.
I keep my chickens in tractor pens and move them every day so they always have fresh, clean grass. They don't get any antibiotics or growth hormones. The eggs are noticeably different than those available commercially both in color and taste. And the chickens that end up in the oven have a texture and taste that's very different from the anemic lumps of soggy, fatty meat that passes for chicken at Wal-Mart. Those are birds raised in commercial barns that reek of ammonia miles away and rarely even see the light of day. Instead of cows we opted for goats. Grass fed, likewise no antibiotics or hormones. Besides being walking composters, they keep the lawnmower in the garage and supply lean, delicious meat.
In that context I don't consider what's available in the store an "improvement" by any definition of that word.
The old ways sometimes.. correction, usually aren't the best way.
Maybe if the discussion is limited to vegetable produce the differences would be less noticeable. If you assume that chemical weed control and pesticide residue are insignificant, then the health benefits of organic verses large scale commercial produce would be difficult to detect.
I think a healthy diet, rich in fruits, nuts and vegetables will be better for your overall health regardless of their organic pedigree. But I would disagree that modern scaling techniques in meat production are really an improvement.
No, you should have to pay whatever the contract, which you signed voluntarily...
That argument is a codependent enabler for corporate abuses. If all the cell providers are using basically the same language in their contracts, consumers have no effective choice. Try to find a brokerage account that doesn't make you waive your rights to seek redress in the courts. They don't exist, because they're all using the binding arbitration clauses in their contracts. Consumers have no effective choice.
And, always in the background, some pompous, know-it-all dick saying, "If you don't like it, don't sign the contract." If that was the case, you wouldn't have a cell phone, telephone, car, bank account, investment account, 401(K) or internet connection. When companies collude on contract language, they are functioning as a cartel not free market players. When you don't have a choice, it's not a free market.
Stop sticking up for abusive behavior, makes you look like a tool.
Not only that, but it forced a reboot.
Woke up this am to find my token Winders box had rebooted overnight. Luckily I only use it as a weather station. I would have been pissed to wake up and find a work environment automatically rebooted. I save my work but sometimes I'll be in the middle of a project and it takes a lot of time to restore the workspace.
ActiveX is from the devil.
The LFB has been testing the units since last year and the machines are primarily used in fires involving acetylene canisters. The group commander for hazardous materials and environmental protection with the LFB says that the robots have cut the time to resolve these potential hazards from 24 hours to 3. From the article: 'Three years ago we were shutting down parts of London for over 24 hours every other week.
Apparently there are a lot of rogue acetylene canisters catching fire in London on a regular basis. I weld as a hobby and in all the welding shops I've been in, in all the classes, I've never seen an acetylene tank go off. And with all the welders I've ever met in all those places, maybe one has ever seen a tank go off. Is it something with your gauges over there? The tank construction? Seems to happen a lot more there than it does here.
Acetylene is nothing you want to dick with. If it gets away from you, then I'd sure want a robot going in to deal with it.
You know when some company with a totally crap product starts looking at their patent portfolio for survival...you know, like SCO...that they don't have much going for them. Instead of putting that time and money into making their products better, they put their best efforts into litigation. You know that's a red flag for any company.
Can we please trade eastern district of Texas back to Mexico? That court is a plague on business and an anchor on innovation.
The researchers have found beautiful women have more children than their plainer counterparts and that a higher proportion of those children are female. Those daughters, once adult, also tend to be attractive and so repeat the pattern.
So easy a caveman can do it.
Breaking iTunes compatibility on Linux and Blackberry and now they're crippling a Google app. What up? I'm sure there's a strategy here, I just can't see it.
I don't think trying to Balkanize their services and regulate iPhone users is going to ultimately be good for them or their user base. The iPhone user demographic may not have the same brand loyalty as the Apple faithful.
Beyond that I've always been impressed with Apple's execution...until recently. Instead of their usual suave and polish, always being ahead of the curve in packaging and style, lately they seem to be heavy handed and bumbling around a bit. Reactive instead of their usual proactive. Being reactive and heavy handed reminds me of Microsoft and even though I'm not a Mac fan myself I really appreciate what Apple did well.
I hope they right themselves and implement a service strategy with the same quality they've shown in other areas. If they start trying to make iPhones the AOL of cellular services, then Google and other providers are going to out-maneuver them with superior service offerings on a wider range of devices.
Maybe it's some flashback to the OS wars. Instead of a big market share and being the dominant player in the field, Apple is setting themselves up for a smaller but more loyal market share. Which could be either good or bad depending on how you feel about them tying their OS to their hardware.