He obviously never read the current TOS which have been in effect for at least two years. He wants to sue after Google's TOS clearly state they assume no responsibility? His own lack of responsibility is the only culprit here. And if by some slim chance he finds he can can sue, the TOS say damages are limited to what he paid for the service (i.e., zero). Please, Slashdot! We aren't this desperate for news!
But he does have one thing on his side. Maybe as with the death of an artist and the value of their works going up, so will the value or quality of his works with their disappearance. The fish that got away is always much larger than the one pulled into the boat. He'll forever be able to say how great his work was without any evidence to disprove his statement.
There is nothing wildly inaccurate or misleading in the title. I applied and was approved. Given my background in business and economics, that renders your numbers 2 and 3 completely null and void.
Look before forming an opinion. I know very little about quantum computing, but am interested in learning more. I was notified just this morning that my application for access submitted only yesterday was approved. State you've read a little about the subject and your reason for requesting access is only for the sake of knowledge and you're in. Based on my minimalist application and its immediate approval, there effectively are no restrictions.
With the lurking and ever-increasing possibility (and use?) of drones in the US not for strikes but simply to keep a "watchful eye" on the civilian population, a more aware and less surveilled American public may be an unintended positive outcome of the war on terror. (Thanks, al-Qaeda.)
I ask both sides to make this entire argument really simple. Just go by the statistics, which are consistent and factual after being gathered and analyzed for at least 20-30 years now by no less than the Centers for Disease Control and the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, neither of which have an agenda either way. And as stated in the topic's starting quoted paragraph, that very large body of data simply does not support the purely anecdotal evidence the pro-helmet crowd without fail uses as justification for their position. The pro-helmet zealots is one group which simply refuses to be swayed by the facts. If they were swayed by now indisputable facts, they'd religiously put on their showering or walking helmets before stepping into the shower or crossing the street as pedestrians--both activities being far more likely to result in bodily harm or death than cycling without a helmet. (This is why I hate religions. Facts are very rarely are taken into consideration. Belief and faith without any supporting evidence whatsoever is good enough.)
Although I am indeed a statistician, one need not have my research Ph.D. to simply read and understand what (valid) statistics have revealed. One needs no more than nominal reading comprehension skills. The heavy lifting of the statistical analysis has already been done for you.:)
As a bona fide statistician and research scientist, I make no false claims. However, it's quite clear that you abhor statistics and refuse to even refer to them, but feel free to verify what I've said by looking at those non-anecdotal statistics you'll find at the CDC. In addition to the CDC statistics, data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the odds of death vs. injury while on foot at 1 in 15. Compare that to the far lower odds cited for death while cycling at 1 in 71. Very simply put, walking is 4-5 times as deadly as cycling so be certain to put that helmet on when you go for a walk.:)
That said, also double-check your reading comprehension skills. My comment about friends' deaths was hardly provided as anecdotal justification, but merely as an aside. Did you see the "BTW?" However, I will grant you the correction that the remark should then have been placed in parentheses.:)
Anecdotal evidence is just that. It's not unlike people saying they don't wear a seat belt because they've known people who were killed while wearing a seat belt. In this case, the outcomes are merely reversed. Three deaths do not negate the statistics of thousands data points across decades of years which very clearly show if you're going to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle, then is even wiser to wear one as a pedestrian when crossing a street. You're almost twice as likely to suffer serious injury or death as that pedestrian not wearing a helmet when crossing a street than a cyclist not wearing a helmet when riding those same roads.
As a racing cyclist of 25+ years, I've seen this discussion a thousand times. The fact is you're far more likely to get injured or die crossing the street as a pedestrian than you are riding a bicycle in any environment. The Centers for Disease Control has the mortality statistics to prove that, but just like with Windows fans vs. Mac fans no one wants to look at the facts, but instead they prefer to simply preach own "religious" beliefs regarding the wearing of helmets--and contrary to facts, religion is based on mere faith.
BTW, I've had three friends killed while riding bikes over the past 30+ years. All three were wearing helmets. The helmet industry has done a marvelous job at marketing helmets in order to sell them, lots of them. They have preyed on the public not at all understanding or even looking at the actual statistics. Like it or not, that's the bottom line.
(P.S. -- I only wear a helmet in races where they are required.)
Commensurate with Web 3.0, history will look back and see this as (at least the start of) the third world war. With recent "conflicts" like Stuxnet, we are seeing the following countries and regions either offensively or defensively engaged or involved in cyber-warfare right now: China, U.S.A., Israel, Iran, India, Pakistan, Germany, Great Britain, Taiwan, Ireland, France, Eastern Europe, Korea, Finland, and no doubt others. With countries around the world very actively involved, potentially millions of innocent lives at stake, the cost of equipment and supplies, defense departments geared-up, and the recruitment of "warriors" in preparation for even more, it certainly sounds like war to me.
This guy must be really pissed-off about missing Kent State where he could have killed a protester for placing a flower in his gun. So in memory of Kent State student Allison Krause who was killed on 4 May 1970 and said, "Flowers are better than bullets", after placing a flower in the barrel of a national guardsman's rifle, 40 years later I remind Officer Bubbles that, "Bubbles are better than bullets."
The bottom line is whatever Microsoft says or attempts as a fear tactic, it won't make any difference whatsoever to a very large number of those consumers. They simply cannot afford Office at any price Microsoft would offer it--other than free. When you have no money, free (or theft*) is the only alternative. Given that reality, Microsoft is jousting at windmills and trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
* Might we next be seeing not-so-subtle threats in those emerging markets about using illegal copies of Office? Betcha we will.
What is there to commercialize? Imagine an application in emergency medicine whereby a person with minimum training in first aid can suddenly perform major emergency surgery on someone in the middle of nowhere, or a surgical procedure and process available but unknown to a physician in a third world country are suddenly visibly rendered in real time and space as he makes the incision, possibly encounters complications and then provided solutions, is fed the patient's vital signs, and all done with less staff and training than typically required--and without the physician ever having once before seen or performed the procedure.
Or, imagine an airplane being landed, after pilots have become incapacitated, by someone who has never flown a plane and needs more than an air controller's audible instructions to safely do so. There are indeed problems which need this solution. In fact, I'm certain we can't even imagine most of them at this point in time--just as Tom Watson (IBM) once thought the world would never need more than a handful of computers.
(And as for form factor, could Edison ever have imagined his cylinder phonograph with its huge horn now being no larger than Apple's iPod shuffle, and with infinitely better quality in every respect? Advice: Neither underestimate the future nor believe it won't be here sooner than you think.)
Anyone else noticed DARPA's recent major marketing/publicity campaign? There is now this well-publicized balloon hunt. There was the televised robotic vehicle challenge. Even very recently, DARPA was central to the plot of an episode of NCIS: LA. Its research efforts have been given very visible press in magazines such as Scientific American. (Look here for another recent SA article about DARPA research.) DARPA has also been featured twice on 60 Minutes in the past few months. And, it now has quite a following on Facebook.
All of these somehow involve or inform the general public--not exactly par for the course given DARPA activities historically have been kept very much under wraps. What's really going on here? Why the recent publicity barrage? Two years ago, or less, I'm willing to bet 98% of Americans had no idea DARPA even existed. Might it be the old magician's trick of having us watch one hand while the other hand is actually performing the "magic?" For example, have you seen iRobot's shape-shifting Chembot recently developed with DARPA funding?
They already churn out better. Haven't traveled to Japan or some of those European countries yet, have you? Americans are overly impressed with the iPhone only because that's the best thing 90% of them have ever seen. It's a known fact that America's cellular business model(s) have only hurt consumers here. We are not now king of the world just because we have iPhones that have an excellent interface, but still lack some features and abilities found on other cell phones around the world for years now.
Can you pay for almost anything here by simply pulling out your iPhone and pressing a couple of "buttons?" That's been commonplace in some countries for a couple or more years now. Please, look beyond the [admittedly] cool interface and observe what you can--and still cannot--do with *any* cell phone in America, including the iPhone.
Only a geek who isn't thinking would think this. If it were true, Gates would not be raking in the billions and billions--last year, this year, and the next year(s). As a friendly user of both Windows and Linux, but not forgetting what it's like to be an "ordinary person" or a noob, I can definitively state that Linux is still years away from what geeks think is wide-spread consumer adoption. (Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? For once yes, we'll not be taking over the world anytime soon, Brain.)
I'm certain that assessment steps on some toes here, but look beyond your own roots for once. Yea, it's a Windows world out there. And until [we] geeks get and accept the realities of that, Linux will always be a distant loser. Stop looking at the product (i.e., Linux) and focus on the customers (i.e., the clueless masses). If geeks had only taken just one basic marketing course while in college, they might see beyond their little kernels. Okay, admittedly Ubuntu takes some steps in that direction, but it's still not for your mother.
True, especially given all the spam and counterfeit software supposedly coming from China now. At least within China, it appears the counterfeit software is being distributed via sneakerware, and not the internet. Then again, that makes sense. After all, a billion sneakers easily trumps even a T3 line for the amount of data that can be moved.
Then enjoy this sinister little [animated] advertisement for Lockheed Martin's Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicle Sure Strike weapons system from its Tactical Aircraft Systems division.
I like their use of the word "uninhabited" instead of unmanned or remote-controlled. It implies these things are designed to hang around out of view and surveillance a very long time, just waiting to be called in [or maybe make the decisions themselves?]. There is the nighttime silence, except for electronics signals, the sinister background music, and the final precision-targeted explosions.
And it certainly seems they conceptually borrowed from those Shadow-named "living" space-travel warships featured on a TV sci-fi series that aired a few years back. This little animation comes across as downright creepy. And even worse, they may well be overhead right now -- just waiting.
Someone gave me the DeLorme Earthmate GPS navigation system that wires into any laptop and offers realtime voice directions. I have used it on three trips now, each with routes I know with my eyes closed, and it has provided very wrong directions each and every time. In each case, had I relied on it, I would never--or after extended detours--have arrived at my destinations. So regarding DeLorme products, caveat emptor.
Oh, and should someone give you it as a gift, you can translate their generosity into the words, "Go get lost!"
Gandhi did not ignore the British; he walked to the sea and made salt. Martin Niemoeller* did not ignore the Nazis; he preached against them. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not ignore segregation; he marched to Selma and Washington. Nelson Mandela did not ignore apartheid; he chose to act, and waited only by being jailed. Was each of them not "bright enough?"
On the other hand, Gandhi died for his beliefs. So did King. Niemoeller spent the remainder of WWII in a concentration camp, personally banished there by Hitler. Mandela sat in jail for many, many years. Yes, maybe one must be brave not to be "bright enough," not turn one's eyes, and hope certain things simply vanish on their own.
* You have likely heard Niemoeller's words. They are:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Slashdot Mirror
He obviously never read the current TOS which have been in effect for at least two years. He wants to sue after Google's TOS clearly state they assume no responsibility? His own lack of responsibility is the only culprit here. And if by some slim chance he finds he can can sue, the TOS say damages are limited to what he paid for the service (i.e., zero). Please, Slashdot! We aren't this desperate for news! But he does have one thing on his side. Maybe as with the death of an artist and the value of their works going up, so will the value or quality of his works with their disappearance. The fish that got away is always much larger than the one pulled into the boat. He'll forever be able to say how great his work was without any evidence to disprove his statement.
There is nothing wildly inaccurate or misleading in the title. I applied and was approved. Given my background in business and economics, that renders your numbers 2 and 3 completely null and void.
Look before forming an opinion. I know very little about quantum computing, but am interested in learning more. I was notified just this morning that my application for access submitted only yesterday was approved. State you've read a little about the subject and your reason for requesting access is only for the sake of knowledge and you're in. Based on my minimalist application and its immediate approval, there effectively are no restrictions.
With the lurking and ever-increasing possibility (and use?) of drones in the US not for strikes but simply to keep a "watchful eye" on the civilian population, a more aware and less surveilled American public may be an unintended positive outcome of the war on terror. (Thanks, al-Qaeda.)
I ask both sides to make this entire argument really simple. Just go by the statistics, which are consistent and factual after being gathered and analyzed for at least 20-30 years now by no less than the Centers for Disease Control and the National Highway Transportation Safety Board, neither of which have an agenda either way. And as stated in the topic's starting quoted paragraph, that very large body of data simply does not support the purely anecdotal evidence the pro-helmet crowd without fail uses as justification for their position. The pro-helmet zealots is one group which simply refuses to be swayed by the facts. If they were swayed by now indisputable facts, they'd religiously put on their showering or walking helmets before stepping into the shower or crossing the street as pedestrians--both activities being far more likely to result in bodily harm or death than cycling without a helmet. (This is why I hate religions. Facts are very rarely are taken into consideration. Belief and faith without any supporting evidence whatsoever is good enough.)
Although I am indeed a statistician, one need not have my research Ph.D. to simply read and understand what (valid) statistics have revealed. One needs no more than nominal reading comprehension skills. The heavy lifting of the statistical analysis has already been done for you. :)
As a bona fide statistician and research scientist, I make no false claims. However, it's quite clear that you abhor statistics and refuse to even refer to them, but feel free to verify what I've said by looking at those non-anecdotal statistics you'll find at the CDC. In addition to the CDC statistics, data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has the odds of death vs. injury while on foot at 1 in 15. Compare that to the far lower odds cited for death while cycling at 1 in 71. Very simply put, walking is 4-5 times as deadly as cycling so be certain to put that helmet on when you go for a walk. :)
:)
That said, also double-check your reading comprehension skills. My comment about friends' deaths was hardly provided as anecdotal justification, but merely as an aside. Did you see the "BTW?" However, I will grant you the correction that the remark should then have been placed in parentheses.
Then rightfully be far more macho than he was and put a helmet on each time you walk across as street. After all, it's the prudent thing to do. :)
Anecdotal evidence is just that. It's not unlike people saying they don't wear a seat belt because they've known people who were killed while wearing a seat belt. In this case, the outcomes are merely reversed. Three deaths do not negate the statistics of thousands data points across decades of years which very clearly show if you're going to wear a helmet while riding a bicycle, then is even wiser to wear one as a pedestrian when crossing a street. You're almost twice as likely to suffer serious injury or death as that pedestrian not wearing a helmet when crossing a street than a cyclist not wearing a helmet when riding those same roads.
As a racing cyclist of 25+ years, I've seen this discussion a thousand times. The fact is you're far more likely to get injured or die crossing the street as a pedestrian than you are riding a bicycle in any environment. The Centers for Disease Control has the mortality statistics to prove that, but just like with Windows fans vs. Mac fans no one wants to look at the facts, but instead they prefer to simply preach own "religious" beliefs regarding the wearing of helmets--and contrary to facts, religion is based on mere faith. BTW, I've had three friends killed while riding bikes over the past 30+ years. All three were wearing helmets. The helmet industry has done a marvelous job at marketing helmets in order to sell them, lots of them. They have preyed on the public not at all understanding or even looking at the actual statistics. Like it or not, that's the bottom line. (P.S. -- I only wear a helmet in races where they are required.)
Commensurate with Web 3.0, history will look back and see this as (at least the start of) the third world war. With recent "conflicts" like Stuxnet, we are seeing the following countries and regions either offensively or defensively engaged or involved in cyber-warfare right now: China, U.S.A., Israel, Iran, India, Pakistan, Germany, Great Britain, Taiwan, Ireland, France, Eastern Europe, Korea, Finland, and no doubt others. With countries around the world very actively involved, potentially millions of innocent lives at stake, the cost of equipment and supplies, defense departments geared-up, and the recruitment of "warriors" in preparation for even more, it certainly sounds like war to me.
This guy must be really pissed-off about missing Kent State where he could have killed a protester for placing a flower in his gun. So in memory of Kent State student Allison Krause who was killed on 4 May 1970 and said, "Flowers are better than bullets", after placing a flower in the barrel of a national guardsman's rifle, 40 years later I remind Officer Bubbles that, "Bubbles are better than bullets."
The bottom line is whatever Microsoft says or attempts as a fear tactic, it won't make any difference whatsoever to a very large number of those consumers. They simply cannot afford Office at any price Microsoft would offer it--other than free. When you have no money, free (or theft*) is the only alternative. Given that reality, Microsoft is jousting at windmills and trying to squeeze blood from a turnip.
* Might we next be seeing not-so-subtle threats in those emerging markets about using illegal copies of Office? Betcha we will.
I credit geeks being geeks and thus (thankfully) frightening today's typical internet user away from /.
What is there to commercialize? Imagine an application in emergency medicine whereby a person with minimum training in first aid can suddenly perform major emergency surgery on someone in the middle of nowhere, or a surgical procedure and process available but unknown to a physician in a third world country are suddenly visibly rendered in real time and space as he makes the incision, possibly encounters complications and then provided solutions, is fed the patient's vital signs, and all done with less staff and training than typically required--and without the physician ever having once before seen or performed the procedure.
Or, imagine an airplane being landed, after pilots have become incapacitated, by someone who has never flown a plane and needs more than an air controller's audible instructions to safely do so. There are indeed problems which need this solution. In fact, I'm certain we can't even imagine most of them at this point in time--just as Tom Watson (IBM) once thought the world would never need more than a handful of computers.
(And as for form factor, could Edison ever have imagined his cylinder phonograph with its huge horn now being no larger than Apple's iPod shuffle, and with infinitely better quality in every respect? Advice: Neither underestimate the future nor believe it won't be here sooner than you think.)
Anyone else noticed DARPA's recent major marketing/publicity campaign? There is now this well-publicized balloon hunt. There was the televised robotic vehicle challenge. Even very recently, DARPA was central to the plot of an episode of NCIS: LA. Its research efforts have been given very visible press in magazines such as Scientific American. (Look here for another recent SA article about DARPA research.) DARPA has also been featured twice on 60 Minutes in the past few months. And, it now has quite a following on Facebook.
All of these somehow involve or inform the general public--not exactly par for the course given DARPA activities historically have been kept very much under wraps. What's really going on here? Why the recent publicity barrage? Two years ago, or less, I'm willing to bet 98% of Americans had no idea DARPA even existed. Might it be the old magician's trick of having us watch one hand while the other hand is actually performing the "magic?" For example, have you seen iRobot's shape-shifting Chembot recently developed with DARPA funding?
They already churn out better. Haven't traveled to Japan or some of those European countries yet, have you? Americans are overly impressed with the iPhone only because that's the best thing 90% of them have ever seen. It's a known fact that America's cellular business model(s) have only hurt consumers here. We are not now king of the world just because we have iPhones that have an excellent interface, but still lack some features and abilities found on other cell phones around the world for years now.
Can you pay for almost anything here by simply pulling out your iPhone and pressing a couple of "buttons?" That's been commonplace in some countries for a couple or more years now. Please, look beyond the [admittedly] cool interface and observe what you can--and still cannot--do with *any* cell phone in America, including the iPhone.
Only a geek who isn't thinking would think this. If it were true, Gates would not be raking in the billions and billions--last year, this year, and the next year(s). As a friendly user of both Windows and Linux, but not forgetting what it's like to be an "ordinary person" or a noob, I can definitively state that Linux is still years away from what geeks think is wide-spread consumer adoption. (Pinky, are you thinking what I'm thinking? For once yes, we'll not be taking over the world anytime soon, Brain.)
I'm certain that assessment steps on some toes here, but look beyond your own roots for once. Yea, it's a Windows world out there. And until [we] geeks get and accept the realities of that, Linux will always be a distant loser. Stop looking at the product (i.e., Linux) and focus on the customers (i.e., the clueless masses). If geeks had only taken just one basic marketing course while in college, they might see beyond their little kernels. Okay, admittedly Ubuntu takes some steps in that direction, but it's still not for your mother.
Sorry, but the truth sometimes hurts.
True, especially given all the spam and counterfeit software supposedly coming from China now. At least within China, it appears the counterfeit software is being distributed via sneakerware, and not the internet. Then again, that makes sense. After all, a billion sneakers easily trumps even a T3 line for the amount of data that can be moved.
What about the time gap between Windows Update and the collapse of Skype? Should not the problem have occurred sooner last week than it did?
I ask b/c I once worked with an inventor who showed me blueprints and a bona fide patent for what he considered to be (one of?) the first ATM(s).
Now, everyone who has ever used it, pay up! (Oh, and that would be a payment--10 cents US)--for each individual time it was used.)
I like their use of the word "uninhabited" instead of unmanned or remote-controlled. It implies these things are designed to hang around out of view and surveillance a very long time, just waiting to be called in [or maybe make the decisions themselves?]. There is the nighttime silence, except for electronics signals, the sinister background music, and the final precision-targeted explosions.
And it certainly seems they conceptually borrowed from those Shadow-named "living" space-travel warships featured on a TV sci-fi series that aired a few years back. This little animation comes across as downright creepy. And even worse, they may well be overhead right now -- just waiting.
Oh, and should someone give you it as a gift, you can translate their generosity into the words, "Go get lost!"
[off-topic]
Gandhi did not ignore the British; he walked to the sea and made salt. Martin Niemoeller* did not ignore the Nazis; he preached against them. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not ignore segregation; he marched to Selma and Washington. Nelson Mandela did not ignore apartheid; he chose to act, and waited only by being jailed. Was each of them not "bright enough?"
On the other hand, Gandhi died for his beliefs. So did King. Niemoeller spent the remainder of WWII in a concentration camp, personally banished there by Hitler. Mandela sat in jail for many, many years. Yes, maybe one must be brave not to be "bright enough," not turn one's eyes, and hope certain things simply vanish on their own.
* You have likely heard Niemoeller's words. They are:
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
[/off-topic]