Isn't everyone missing the real issue here? It's not that someone mis-addressed an email. It's not that Outlook helped them mess up. It's not that it was leaders' information.
It's the fact that they were sending this kind of information about anyone in clear text, on an email, at all, to anyone.
No-one will "win", and it's not helpful to represent the issue as if it's "winnable" by either side.
Malware, viruses, trojans and other malicious behaviour of yet unheard methods will always be around, and we'll always be inventing new ways of counteracting them. Which will in turn be circumvented, and so it goes on.
This is the BBC. Our hearts are warmed by your love for our broadcasts, and your wish to gift it to the rest of the world. You are both gracious and generous.
Now that we no longer sell it abroad, but provide it for free, you will have two options next year;
- Pay a 20% increase in your licence fee to replace this lost revenue. - Not get another series.
But technically you could argue that they are double dipping, since it should be payed though UK TV licenses.
Why should it?
If I produce something for a customer, and can then also sell it to another, does my second customer have an expectation that it should be free for them? Or would my first customer not expect that profit from subsequent sales be factored into the price they pay?
The BBC is public funded by UK residents. Those who fund it have every right to demand that the BBC squeeze every penny they can out of foreign sales. This money goes back into the BBC and supplements the public funding.
In fact, the British government decided that what is most appropriate is to work with the digital currency community to develop a set of best practices for consumer protection and create a voluntary, opt-in regime.
Because self-regulation has always worked so well in the banking sector.
If only taxi companies had access to this new fangled gizmos!
Do you really think it's beyond a taxi driver to own a GPS Navigator? Do you really think no taxi companies have systems that track their drivers and can notify their clients?
Uber is not what is making things better here. Technology is.
For example, British English is non-rhotic (r-dropping)
Not it's not. There is no such thing as "British English" pronunciation. English as spoken in Britain varies a great deal in pronunciation. You are comparing just one variation with American English.
Scottish English retains the historic vowel pronunciation better than both British and American English
Scottish English is a sub-set of British English, they are not distinct.
something I think most Brits would be loathe to admit.;) )
Instead of living off the talents of others, his kids need to go out and get jobs.
Could the same not be said of Thicke and Williams? The point is that someone is making money from this music, why should it be Thicke and Williams when all they've done is rehash someone else's talent?
All these things happen. Yet you are worried most about people being worried about offensive comments on twitter? Just think of the wonderful observations you could have made about the world's problems, but instead you chose to post about this.
Life isn't all either/or. It is possible to care about more than one thing.
I truly have no idea what point you are trying to make. Where do I say that "society" should be asked on proper spelling? What the hell has Ebonics got to do with it?
Different dialects of English pronounce words in different ways. Attempts to get a unified spelling based on pronunciation would be fruitless. This is why we have spelling as it is now; often archaic and often non-intuitive. But it's a standard that can be used by all to ensure accuracy and ease of reading.
If we decide, on the other hand, that certain words are exempt from that standard, then the first thing we need to do is determine which are the certain words. Then I'd be interested in what logic determined which words.
Otherwise we may as well give up on spelling and say you can spell all words however you like. Just don't complain if people can't follow you.
Exactly. An insurance company is in the business of taking on risk. If they wanted to take on the high risk of the Kickstarted company, then they could invest in it themselves. Why do they need a middle man?
Back in the grand old days of radio when they played vinyl records over the air, bands were pushing their music onto my radio all the time. With the collusion of the radio station! And it totally locked up the radio for a good three or four minutes at a time. And it wasn't illegal! But hey, if you enjoy having some radio station decide what you are going to listen to...
If only there had been some way of not listening to those records, and apparently some people are still forced to listen to music they don't like. You'd think they'd have solved this problem in these modern times.
Yeah. Remotely downloading something onto a device belonging to someone else is exactly the same as stealing that device. Because once you've done using it, they are deprived of its use totally from that point on.
Just like you'd stole it. This is the legal definition, you'll find it in all the legal books.
Fortunately most countries have other methods of licensing plumbers, electricians, doctors, lawyers, nannies, or nurses. Most are far more stringent than taxi drivers. So the city doesn't need to take responsibility for it.
In most places you cannot turn up at a hospital and say "I'm not a licensed nurse, but that's ok, I'm just "sharing" medical care, not providing it. Now pay me."
I don't see a need for licensing painter or interior decorators, TBH.
And yet it takes so long to say what you summarise in four lines.
Yes, the all the math is good to see, it's not just making this all up. But this article starts out so promising and ends abruptly just when it gets around to the interesting bit.
Having them as addons is the browser makers getting the message. Some people want what an addon does, some people don't. Providing capability for addons to deliver functionality is giving people exactly what they want, and not burdening them with stuff they don't want.
Or would you rather have your browsers provided as bloatware full of functionality you don't want and can't get rid of?
Because it may not be the end user who has done the overclocking. The supplier may have in order to claim a higher spec to the hardware than NVidia is willing to support.
Also, by providing the option it could be claimed that NVidia is supporting the option. That makes them liable if it causes a problem, particularly something nasty like overheating and an electrical fire.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't everyone missing the real issue here? It's not that someone mis-addressed an email. It's not that Outlook helped them mess up. It's not that it was leaders' information.
It's the fact that they were sending this kind of information about anyone in clear text, on an email, at all, to anyone.
No-one will "win", and it's not helpful to represent the issue as if it's "winnable" by either side.
Malware, viruses, trojans and other malicious behaviour of yet unheard methods will always be around, and we'll always be inventing new ways of counteracting them. Which will in turn be circumvented, and so it goes on.
Dear amaurea,
This is the BBC. Our hearts are warmed by your love for our broadcasts, and your wish to gift it to the rest of the world. You are both gracious and generous.
Now that we no longer sell it abroad, but provide it for free, you will have two options next year;
- Pay a 20% increase in your licence fee to replace this lost revenue.
- Not get another series.
Thanking you.
But technically you could argue that they are double dipping, since it should be payed though UK TV licenses.
Why should it?
If I produce something for a customer, and can then also sell it to another, does my second customer have an expectation that it should be free for them? Or would my first customer not expect that profit from subsequent sales be factored into the price they pay?
The BBC is public funded by UK residents. Those who fund it have every right to demand that the BBC squeeze every penny they can out of foreign sales. This money goes back into the BBC and supplements the public funding.
In fact, the British government decided that what is most appropriate is to work with the digital currency community to develop a set of best practices for consumer protection and create a voluntary, opt-in regime.
Because self-regulation has always worked so well in the banking sector.
If only taxi companies had access to this new fangled gizmos!
Do you really think it's beyond a taxi driver to own a GPS Navigator? Do you really think no taxi companies have systems that track their drivers and can notify their clients?
Uber is not what is making things better here. Technology is.
then give the dumb driver turn-by-turn directions because he has no idea where your destination is
What makes you think an Uber driver will be so much better at this?
you can see how long it'll take the driver to get to you
This is not technology that is confined to Uber.
For example, British English is non-rhotic (r-dropping)
Not it's not. There is no such thing as "British English" pronunciation. English as spoken in Britain varies a great deal in pronunciation. You are comparing just one variation with American English.
Scottish English retains the historic vowel pronunciation better than both British and American English
Scottish English is a sub-set of British English, they are not distinct.
something I think most Brits would be loathe to admit. ;) )
What, even the Scottish Brits?
Oh no, my phone is dead/stolen! Better email people and tell them not to phone me and I'll be reachable by email.
Just need to log into my email and ... ... shit...
Maybe you shouldn't read comments that you think add nothing to the conversation. Or did you just say that to see your words on the screen?
Instead of living off the talents of others, his kids need to go out and get jobs.
Could the same not be said of Thicke and Williams? The point is that someone is making money from this music, why should it be Thicke and Williams when all they've done is rehash someone else's talent?
All these things happen. Yet you are worried most about people being worried about offensive comments on twitter? Just think of the wonderful observations you could have made about the world's problems, but instead you chose to post about this.
Life isn't all either/or. It is possible to care about more than one thing.
I truly have no idea what point you are trying to make. Where do I say that "society" should be asked on proper spelling? What the hell has Ebonics got to do with it?
Different dialects of English pronounce words in different ways. Attempts to get a unified spelling based on pronunciation would be fruitless. This is why we have spelling as it is now; often archaic and often non-intuitive. But it's a standard that can be used by all to ensure accuracy and ease of reading.
If we decide, on the other hand, that certain words are exempt from that standard, then the first thing we need to do is determine which are the certain words. Then I'd be interested in what logic determined which words.
Otherwise we may as well give up on spelling and say you can spell all words however you like. Just don't complain if people can't follow you.
If she was using an email service on US soil there is most definitely an email trail in some government bunker somewhere.
What makes her email any different from everyone elses'?
Exactly. An insurance company is in the business of taking on risk. If they wanted to take on the high risk of the Kickstarted company, then they could invest in it themselves. Why do they need a middle man?
I think that was my point. Just like iTunes has a selection and a delete button.
It's funny, but I never realized how fucking pointless it is to ensure certain words are spelled correctly until now.
So which certain words don't need to be spelt correctly?
Do wee gett to desside owrsef watt words? Or do we need some kind of standard? Otherwize who nos wat problems mite be cozzed.
Back in the grand old days of radio when they played vinyl records over the air, bands were pushing their music onto my radio all the time. With the collusion of the radio station! And it totally locked up the radio for a good three or four minutes at a time. And it wasn't illegal! But hey, if you enjoy having some radio station decide what you are going to listen to ...
If only there had been some way of not listening to those records, and apparently some people are still forced to listen to music they don't like. You'd think they'd have solved this problem in these modern times.
Yeah. Remotely downloading something onto a device belonging to someone else is exactly the same as stealing that device. Because once you've done using it, they are deprived of its use totally from that point on.
Just like you'd stole it. This is the legal definition, you'll find it in all the legal books.
Or any number of other things that can obscure your face. Far cheaper and more effective.
I personally favour a bandana, enabling me to look like I'm about to hold up the stagecoach.
Fortunately most countries have other methods of licensing plumbers, electricians, doctors, lawyers, nannies, or nurses. Most are far more stringent than taxi drivers. So the city doesn't need to take responsibility for it.
In most places you cannot turn up at a hospital and say "I'm not a licensed nurse, but that's ok, I'm just "sharing" medical care, not providing it. Now pay me."
I don't see a need for licensing painter or interior decorators, TBH.
And yet it takes so long to say what you summarise in four lines.
Yes, the all the math is good to see, it's not just making this all up. But this article starts out so promising and ends abruptly just when it gets around to the interesting bit.
The article is very shy about actually saying how many people contribute to, or watch, these streams.
I guess if you say you "Got the Internet To Watch People Code", it can mean just about any number from 2 to 200 million. But who's counting?
Having them as addons is the browser makers getting the message. Some people want what an addon does, some people don't. Providing capability for addons to deliver functionality is giving people exactly what they want, and not burdening them with stuff they don't want.
Or would you rather have your browsers provided as bloatware full of functionality you don't want and can't get rid of?
Because it may not be the end user who has done the overclocking. The supplier may have in order to claim a higher spec to the hardware than NVidia is willing to support.
Also, by providing the option it could be claimed that NVidia is supporting the option. That makes them liable if it causes a problem, particularly something nasty like overheating and an electrical fire.