Target Corp has some crazy AP technology. They actually hold seminars and train the FBI. They setup the surveillance for the entire downtown Minneapolis area. They also rushed some tapes to make critical identifications in big cases to their AP division. They do large busts, including international fencing rings and stuff. They are absolutely huge when it comes to assisting the law enforcement community and have won a few awards.
I don't think consumers have anything to worry about. Who really cares what you buy at a Target store? If you are willing to let the cashier know then why not the AP staff? The odds are so ultra low anyways that they actually are paying attention to you.
No. Using steroids for performance gains would be wrong. Your forgetting that I have a condition that warrants having Adderall. Wanting to concentrate on building your upper body is a personal choice without an underlying medical condition. Now, if you had muscle atrophy in your legs and the doctor prescribed steroids to help treat that condition, and you happened to be big into upper body, you shouldn't be kept out of an upper body competition just because there are steroids in your blood for a condition in your legs. That is the difference to me. If you are taking the drugs for a medical condition, and you have a positive side effect which benefits an area of your life outside of the original intentions of treating the condition, then you should not be discriminated against as a result.
I do it. I have ADHD, but the Adderall does a heck of a lot more than keep my ADHD in line. It has been extremely beneficial to me at work and in my personal projects with programming and coming up with ideas. It is like caffeine x 10 without the jitters and with the ability to focus that amazing energy at whatever you want. Then again, since I have ADHD, maybe that is just normal to everyone else but something new to me?
I think it has given me an edge over the average person. However, that is a side effect of the drug. I don't think I should be discriminated against for that. I am not abusing it, and it is working as the doctor hoped at keeping my ADHD in line. Before I found Adderall, nothing I had tried worked in terms of meds. I would not want to get out of bed and I had no energy, focus, or drive.
I don't like the thought of people without actual medical need taking it to get ahead. I look at that as the same thing as teens smoking pot. Cancer patients smoking pot to alleviate pain and keep their food down is a hell of a lot different than Harold and Kumar getting stoned so the sliders at White Castle taste wicked and so they can "feel" the music.
If your not breaking the law, then why care if someone puts a camera in every room of your house and monitors your conversations and activities?
I also think this should be tied into a system so that if you for instance purchased alcohol, your medical insurance and life insurance would automatically cost more per drink you have.
Eventually I hope our government implants explosives into our heads so that they can snuff the opposition or any law violators.
My school did something like this to me. About 5 years ago, when blogs and social sites were written by hand in code, I had one where I had posted and written on. Anyways, one day I come in and my parents are sitting down with the police officers and school administration to have a talk about my site. Apparently they didn't like it. Well, the whole issue kind of fizzled up, but not before a suspension.
Now kids decorate their myspace pages with 420 and pot leaves all over them, incriminating photos and words. Sort of reminds me of kids 10 years ago (and still occuring today) filming their crimes and vandalism. Go ahead, hand over every deep dark secret to your local police department and future employers. Let them use the WayBackMachine to see who you really were before graduating. Good luck on that job interview.
This is positive even if it hurts the small inventor.
This person I know works as a copyright lawyer. Coincidentally for Microsoft. Her job is to find vague ideas that have not been patented and patent them in as many countries as possible with the broadest most vague wording that could possibly hold up in court. Microsoft's idea is that 20 years down the road each patent will pay off itself 100 fold.
So why is it okay to do something that hurts the small investor? Because now the small investor can't be sued when they come out with a breakthrough product simply because it infringes upon some BS patent held by a company with zero intentions of ever doing anything with it... well, except for using it to hold a small inventor hostage and take all his/her possessions.
Damn fine work on Google's part. This is the best interface for stock information I have seen on the entire internet. Everything you need in terms of details are all together and simply laid out with a sweet AJAX news/price chart. Bravo Google. Bravo.
It is sad how people get paranoid over Google. Just because they are huge, have tons of money, and great ambition doesn't mean that they are going to abuse their power.
Argue all you want about Google in China or anything else. Simple matter of the fact is that if the paranoid stand in the way of a company's ambitions, they risk destroying a beautiful advance in technology and living. If they don't stand in the way and Google starts censoring the competition, people will switch back to Comcast or Time Warner and Google will lose a ton of money for the costs of starting up the service but not making enough revenue off of it.
This reminds me of the paranoid trying to stop the government from putting Fluoride in the water supply. Can't they spend their time in a more productive way than fighting progress?
I agree with some of these comments.
IVRs help connect customers to the right groups and people with the skills needed to resolve their problems. They ultimately reduce the wait time people have on phones and get you better service.
I think it is very easy for people to just get frusterated by these, but they should try and realize that the systems are really there to help them.
I thought to myself "Google farted, that sound you hear is a million Slashdotters sniffing."
I hear that the new "in" thing is to bash Google because everyone loves them
Once they get big enough, I hope they will overthrow the governments of the world.
When they do, they will make it simple, basic, and easy to use. In addition they will offer free healthy lunches daily, plenty of fun activities, free healthcare and dental onsite, free gym access, a free gmail account, and the best ever... a Microsoft-free world. Whoops, I spilled the news about their secret G-OS
whenever you try to go to a p2p site or the anarchist cookbook, a local officer will be immidiately dispatched to your house. Let us tie police records and social security numbers to mac addresses.
Read that. The entire industry instantly hates you and will be saying prayers tonight that your company goes under.
Your company has zero moral/ethical ground here... Google has been working to fight click inflation. So you are suing them? Ridiculous. Shouldn't you be suing the fraudulent clickers?
Think about it this way... if someone buys a car and decides to use it as a weapon, should someone sue the car manufacturer for not preventing it from being used as a weapon?
Enjoy the 15 minutes of fame. Click Defense probably won't last much longer than that.
I am positive I have it all figured out.
Google has searching, and offers up ads on the side for products. Google has Froogle, a searching service which indexes store products for display as well. Well, think about the next logical step...
Google will provide hosting and payment services for people and companies selling products. Consumers will love it because their CC # will be going through Google, which they trust, versus a small site. On top of that, consumers will be able to find what they are looking for without running into broken links, unfriendly designs, or going through site after site.
Google will get some small $ for each transaction (perhaps a percentage). Sellers will love it because they won't have to worry about server uptime as much, payment systems, or security... plus they have the worlds' biggest customer base at their fingers.
This powerful move will literally turn Google into the worlds biggest store.
Everyone wins. Buyers / Sellers / Google. Well, not everyone wins. Ebay sure won't win. Verisign won't win. PayPal won't win. Yahoo won't win.
How is this a surprise?
Go look on google groups and see some other quiet actions being taken. Many people who ordered from chemical suppliers, even frickin plastic tubes and such from many years ago are getting threatening letters. These are legitimate citizens who are into chemistry (many licensed) getting pushed around by the DOJ.
The government has MANY regulations that cost businesses a fortune to comply with. If you want to get paranoid, you could say that "the system" does these things because that way the poor man will NEVER be able to get rich, because only the rich will be able to afford to comply. So, if they can comply, and their competition is reduced in the process (i.e. smaller businesses), that is all the more bank in their pockets.
Personally, this is rediculous. If someone wants to commit crimes, they will find a way. This just reduces our liberties and privacy.
Isn't this really what the terrorists wanted all along? A paranoid country spending tons of money on the mere thought of an attack? wide spread panics? companies going out of business due to new regulations?
This is what the terrorists wanted. All it took was 19 guys to turn us into our own worst enemy.
I think all this arguing ya'll have over this is crazy. It brings us back to the issues we have been discussing time and time again. Why on earth would you pay $1500 for a camera, if you are not going to get $1500 usage out of it!? I understand if you are like a wedding photographer or something, but shesh.
Same deal with software like photoshop or office. Sorry microsoft, but $500 for me to write a school paper every few months isn't practical. Sorry adobe, $700 or whatnot to play around with digital photos now and then ain't worth it. Sorry cannon, $1500 to take a picture? What ever happened to disposable cameras?
For those who can't afford, or don't use $1500 worth of digital camera, they can at least hack and enjoy the extra features that they wouldn't pay for anyways, and which wouldn't hurt anyone to give them.
Yea, $700 or whatever for the rebel is enough for me, and I will gladly hack it if I can, because its the American thing to do.
umm, hasn't Compaq had this one out for like a year or so now? I think this is old news, since we have had one in our store forever. Too bad we only sold 1 out of the half million computers we sold. LoL.
I think it seems like the majority of people feel similar to myself. Why buy something that you wouldn't pay full price for? Of course you would pay something, but not much, not even as much as it may go for on ebay.
I recently bought call of duty and C+C generals. You better believe I pirated the games first to see how I would like them. UT2004? No thanks, not worth $40 to me.
Also, most pirates have trouble using the games for multiplayer purposes, which really is no fun for a lot of us who live for multiplayer games as well.
Lets look at the industry parallel to gaming software. Application software. I am sorry, but Microsoft doesn't need $100+ for a program for me to TYPE in. Does that mean I should have to be cursed to a pencil and paper for the rest of my life? Or spend countless hours seeking an incompatable and foreign application of lesser value?
Only the inconsiderate will contend that piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Of course it does, but then again, you must look at the other side as well to see that unfair prices and perhaps disapointing quality of games drivers people to such measures.
Well, some of us are just theives and always will be I suppose.
I don't see why we would ever have legislation against spyware.
1) It could potentially hurt a legitamate software company, since most politicians don't know enough about computers and programs to clearly state the differences between spyware and non-spyware.
2) The U.S. is about protecting rights, not limiting them. Putting spyware companies out of business may seem like good business, but really isn't. Remember, its someone elses job somewhere.
Which brings me to my third point...
3) Many, many, many... many of us have jobs due to spyware. Sure, its not fun, it makes our lives suck, its bad! bad as it may be, many of us have jobs because of it, not to mention all the software companies and repair shops all over the place which are getting money for removing spyware. Its a giant cycle that feeds itself called the economy, and once we start taking little things out of the loop, we only hurt ourselves.
I don't disagree with people that spyware sucks. So does spam for that matter, but making laws are not going to do anything. We all saw how ineffective anti-spam laws have been, do we really think much will change with a spyware law? Everything about making spyware illegal would go against the whole foundation of our country. As for Europe, its okay for them to ban spyware.
Slashdot Mirror
Target Corp has some crazy AP technology. They actually hold seminars and train the FBI. They setup the surveillance for the entire downtown Minneapolis area. They also rushed some tapes to make critical identifications in big cases to their AP division. They do large busts, including international fencing rings and stuff. They are absolutely huge when it comes to assisting the law enforcement community and have won a few awards.
I don't think consumers have anything to worry about. Who really cares what you buy at a Target store? If you are willing to let the cashier know then why not the AP staff? The odds are so ultra low anyways that they actually are paying attention to you.
No. Using steroids for performance gains would be wrong. Your forgetting that I have a condition that warrants having Adderall. Wanting to concentrate on building your upper body is a personal choice without an underlying medical condition. Now, if you had muscle atrophy in your legs and the doctor prescribed steroids to help treat that condition, and you happened to be big into upper body, you shouldn't be kept out of an upper body competition just because there are steroids in your blood for a condition in your legs. That is the difference to me. If you are taking the drugs for a medical condition, and you have a positive side effect which benefits an area of your life outside of the original intentions of treating the condition, then you should not be discriminated against as a result.
I do it. I have ADHD, but the Adderall does a heck of a lot more than keep my ADHD in line. It has been extremely beneficial to me at work and in my personal projects with programming and coming up with ideas. It is like caffeine x 10 without the jitters and with the ability to focus that amazing energy at whatever you want. Then again, since I have ADHD, maybe that is just normal to everyone else but something new to me? I think it has given me an edge over the average person. However, that is a side effect of the drug. I don't think I should be discriminated against for that. I am not abusing it, and it is working as the doctor hoped at keeping my ADHD in line. Before I found Adderall, nothing I had tried worked in terms of meds. I would not want to get out of bed and I had no energy, focus, or drive. I don't like the thought of people without actual medical need taking it to get ahead. I look at that as the same thing as teens smoking pot. Cancer patients smoking pot to alleviate pain and keep their food down is a hell of a lot different than Harold and Kumar getting stoned so the sliders at White Castle taste wicked and so they can "feel" the music.
If your not breaking the law, then why care if someone puts a camera in every room of your house and monitors your conversations and activities?
I also think this should be tied into a system so that if you for instance purchased alcohol, your medical insurance and life insurance would automatically cost more per drink you have.
Eventually I hope our government implants explosives into our heads so that they can snuff the opposition or any law violators.
Now kids decorate their myspace pages with 420 and pot leaves all over them, incriminating photos and words. Sort of reminds me of kids 10 years ago (and still occuring today) filming their crimes and vandalism. Go ahead, hand over every deep dark secret to your local police department and future employers. Let them use the WayBackMachine to see who you really were before graduating. Good luck on that job interview.
This is positive even if it hurts the small inventor. This person I know works as a copyright lawyer. Coincidentally for Microsoft. Her job is to find vague ideas that have not been patented and patent them in as many countries as possible with the broadest most vague wording that could possibly hold up in court. Microsoft's idea is that 20 years down the road each patent will pay off itself 100 fold. So why is it okay to do something that hurts the small investor? Because now the small investor can't be sued when they come out with a breakthrough product simply because it infringes upon some BS patent held by a company with zero intentions of ever doing anything with it... well, except for using it to hold a small inventor hostage and take all his/her possessions.
Damn fine work on Google's part. This is the best interface for stock information I have seen on the entire internet. Everything you need in terms of details are all together and simply laid out with a sweet AJAX news/price chart. Bravo Google. Bravo.
Argue all you want about Google in China or anything else. Simple matter of the fact is that if the paranoid stand in the way of a company's ambitions, they risk destroying a beautiful advance in technology and living. If they don't stand in the way and Google starts censoring the competition, people will switch back to Comcast or Time Warner and Google will lose a ton of money for the costs of starting up the service but not making enough revenue off of it.
This reminds me of the paranoid trying to stop the government from putting Fluoride in the water supply. Can't they spend their time in a more productive way than fighting progress?
for every one that gets caught, 1000 do this one time in co-op with their friends working the registers and they get away with it.
I agree with some of these comments. IVRs help connect customers to the right groups and people with the skills needed to resolve their problems. They ultimately reduce the wait time people have on phones and get you better service. I think it is very easy for people to just get frusterated by these, but they should try and realize that the systems are really there to help them.
I thought to myself "Google farted, that sound you hear is a million Slashdotters sniffing." I hear that the new "in" thing is to bash Google because everyone loves them
I hope this happens. Google rocks.
Once they get big enough, I hope they will overthrow the governments of the world.
When they do, they will make it simple, basic, and easy to use. In addition they will offer free healthy lunches daily, plenty of fun activities, free healthcare and dental onsite, free gym access, a free gmail account, and the best ever... a Microsoft-free world. Whoops, I spilled the news about their secret G-OS
this is perfect.
we can now fight terrorism better than ever.
whenever you try to go to a p2p site or the anarchist cookbook, a local officer will be immidiately dispatched to your house. Let us tie police records and social security numbers to mac addresses.
yet another way to erode our privacy.
"reported to police by a neighbour concerned that he was acting suspiciously"
sounds like the guy is not the type to pay for internet anyways if he is willing to go to all that trouble.
to: sales@clickdefense.com
2 2251&threshold=1&tid=217&tid=123&tid=98
Hey,
I read about your company suing Google.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/30/1
Read that. The entire industry instantly hates you and will be saying prayers tonight that your company goes under.
Your company has zero moral/ethical ground here... Google has been working to fight click inflation. So you are suing them? Ridiculous. Shouldn't you be suing the fraudulent clickers?
Think about it this way... if someone buys a car and decides to use it as a weapon, should someone sue the car manufacturer for not preventing it from being used as a weapon?
Enjoy the 15 minutes of fame. Click Defense probably won't last much longer than that.
- Andrew
I am positive I have it all figured out. Google has searching, and offers up ads on the side for products. Google has Froogle, a searching service which indexes store products for display as well. Well, think about the next logical step... Google will provide hosting and payment services for people and companies selling products. Consumers will love it because their CC # will be going through Google, which they trust, versus a small site. On top of that, consumers will be able to find what they are looking for without running into broken links, unfriendly designs, or going through site after site. Google will get some small $ for each transaction (perhaps a percentage). Sellers will love it because they won't have to worry about server uptime as much, payment systems, or security... plus they have the worlds' biggest customer base at their fingers. This powerful move will literally turn Google into the worlds biggest store. Everyone wins. Buyers / Sellers / Google. Well, not everyone wins. Ebay sure won't win. Verisign won't win. PayPal won't win. Yahoo won't win.
How is this a surprise? Go look on google groups and see some other quiet actions being taken. Many people who ordered from chemical suppliers, even frickin plastic tubes and such from many years ago are getting threatening letters. These are legitimate citizens who are into chemistry (many licensed) getting pushed around by the DOJ. The government has MANY regulations that cost businesses a fortune to comply with. If you want to get paranoid, you could say that "the system" does these things because that way the poor man will NEVER be able to get rich, because only the rich will be able to afford to comply. So, if they can comply, and their competition is reduced in the process (i.e. smaller businesses), that is all the more bank in their pockets. Personally, this is rediculous. If someone wants to commit crimes, they will find a way. This just reduces our liberties and privacy. Isn't this really what the terrorists wanted all along? A paranoid country spending tons of money on the mere thought of an attack? wide spread panics? companies going out of business due to new regulations? This is what the terrorists wanted. All it took was 19 guys to turn us into our own worst enemy.
I think all this arguing ya'll have over this is crazy. It brings us back to the issues we have been discussing time and time again. Why on earth would you pay $1500 for a camera, if you are not going to get $1500 usage out of it!? I understand if you are like a wedding photographer or something, but shesh.
Same deal with software like photoshop or office. Sorry microsoft, but $500 for me to write a school paper every few months isn't practical. Sorry adobe, $700 or whatnot to play around with digital photos now and then ain't worth it. Sorry cannon, $1500 to take a picture? What ever happened to disposable cameras?
For those who can't afford, or don't use $1500 worth of digital camera, they can at least hack and enjoy the extra features that they wouldn't pay for anyways, and which wouldn't hurt anyone to give them.
Yea, $700 or whatever for the rebel is enough for me, and I will gladly hack it if I can, because its the American thing to do.
Hearts afire,
- Andy
umm, hasn't Compaq had this one out for like a year or so now? I think this is old news, since we have had one in our store forever. Too bad we only sold 1 out of the half million computers we sold. LoL.
I think it seems like the majority of people feel similar to myself. Why buy something that you wouldn't pay full price for? Of course you would pay something, but not much, not even as much as it may go for on ebay.
I recently bought call of duty and C+C generals. You better believe I pirated the games first to see how I would like them. UT2004? No thanks, not worth $40 to me.
Also, most pirates have trouble using the games for multiplayer purposes, which really is no fun for a lot of us who live for multiplayer games as well.
Lets look at the industry parallel to gaming software. Application software. I am sorry, but Microsoft doesn't need $100+ for a program for me to TYPE in. Does that mean I should have to be cursed to a pencil and paper for the rest of my life? Or spend countless hours seeking an incompatable and foreign application of lesser value?
Only the inconsiderate will contend that piracy doesn't hurt anyone. Of course it does, but then again, you must look at the other side as well to see that unfair prices and perhaps disapointing quality of games drivers people to such measures.
Well, some of us are just theives and always will be I suppose.
I don't see why we would ever have legislation against spyware. 1) It could potentially hurt a legitamate software company, since most politicians don't know enough about computers and programs to clearly state the differences between spyware and non-spyware. 2) The U.S. is about protecting rights, not limiting them. Putting spyware companies out of business may seem like good business, but really isn't. Remember, its someone elses job somewhere. Which brings me to my third point... 3) Many, many, many... many of us have jobs due to spyware. Sure, its not fun, it makes our lives suck, its bad! bad as it may be, many of us have jobs because of it, not to mention all the software companies and repair shops all over the place which are getting money for removing spyware. Its a giant cycle that feeds itself called the economy, and once we start taking little things out of the loop, we only hurt ourselves. I don't disagree with people that spyware sucks. So does spam for that matter, but making laws are not going to do anything. We all saw how ineffective anti-spam laws have been, do we really think much will change with a spyware law? Everything about making spyware illegal would go against the whole foundation of our country. As for Europe, its okay for them to ban spyware.