Except for material we may license to you, Apple does not claim ownership of the materials and/or Content you submit or make available on the Service. However, by submitting or posting such Content on areas of the Service that are accessible by the public or other users with whom you consent to share such Content, you grant Apple a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Service solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available, without any compensation or obligation to you.
Which sounds pretty reasonable. The problem comes earlier in the "agreement,"
Apple reserves the right to take steps Apple believes are reasonably necessary or appropriate to enforce and/or verify compliance with any part of this Agreement. You acknowledge and agree that Apple may, without liability to you, access, use, preserve and/or disclose your Account information and Content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and/or a third party,
So the "agreement" grants Apple privileges to spy on your data and pass it along to any unspecified "third party" or their choice, if they feel like you might be doing something they dislike. I read it; I didn't sign it. I don't think anyone should.
Common law proof, is "demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt".
It's worse than that. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard applied in criminal proceedings. In civil cases, including multi-million-dollar lawsuits, the standard is much lower. The jury's conclusion must be supported "by a preponderance of the evidence."
Let's just say it seems easy, under those circumstances, for 12 laymen to be misled by whichever expert produces a thicker and/or glossier report.
(I Am Not A Lawyer but I did have the standard of evidence explained to me by a judge when I was sitting on a jury; and thankfully there was no scientific evidence presented in my case.)
What a depressingly (stereo)typical attitude: if the student is going to get a question wrong, change the question. I submit that a better approach is to change the student: identify the kinds of errors he/she produces and teach correct procedures for avoiding those errors.
In fact that's what I thought the purpose of a "test" was: to evaluate a student's knowledge, identify any deficiencies, and ideally inform remedial teaching as needed. I guess I'm old-fashioned.
If only that were possible. I don't have kids in school but my impression is that public schools (in the U.S.) these days require kids to use the Web. I think keeping one's kids off the Net till they are 13 or so could be a sensible decision for some parents, but unfortunately the government officials who run the schools deny us that option.
please tell me how that is in ANY way "Beneficial for[sic] an economy."?
Bad decisions generally don't benefit the economy. It's certainly possible the elimination of your product line was a bad decision. However, companies must be free to make bad decisions so they are also free to make good decisions. It is also possible the decision to eliminate your product line was only bad from your point of view. If it generates a lot of sales, but has low profit margins, the company may indeed be better off getting out of that business and investing their (limited) capital in more profitable lines.
I think your story is an example of how in the market, money is efficient to re-allocate and people are not. So workers, individuals like you, are casualties when businesses re-align themselves. This is what I believe economists call "structural unemployment" and it is generally regarded as a necessary evil. It is also the best argument in favor of government policies like the unemployment insurance that sustained you (in admittedly meager fashion) until you were able to find a new job and again become a productive contributor the the economy.
If you parse the ridiculously long sentence in the summary, what Arizona is trying to outlaw is using obscene language, suggest lewd acts, or threaten violence. The "intent to annoy" thing is a necessary condition for the post to be in violation of this law. So if I say "the Arizona legislature can go fuck themselves. I want to beat them all with a golf club," the state still has to prove I did it with intent to 'terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" and if they can't then my obscene, suggestive, violent language was OK.
I'm not defending the law. I hate it. I'm only saying that sounding off on a misinterpretation of its text, based on the word "annoy," fails to grasp the intent of the law.
I'm not claiming that all regulation is good. The examples you cite (regulating price of electricity, the TSA) are clear examples of stupid, counterproductive regulation.
My position is that without Federal law to suppress a host of discriminatory practices, the bigots would still be in charge. Without Federal law to prevent dioxin in the ground water, companies would still be dumping toxic waste. The quality of life we take for granted did not magically emerge as we all became enlightened. It required the big stick of government regulation to stop the elite from abusing the rest of the public.
Still I would rather have a 1940 size US government with a 1940 size budget and 1940 amount of federal regulations. (and a 2012 respect for civil rights)
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
All of the above and more are from the postwar period. I don't think you can have it both ways: 2012 respect for civil rights is only possible through 2012 regulation. One could say the same about clean water, food safety, highway safety, and other important issues.
I don't see how it's feasible for a retail store to match Amazon's prices. The whole point of Amazon is that they have lower overhead due to lack of a store front, sales staff etc. and they pass that savings along to the consumer. A retail store cannot match their prices and operate at a profit.
This article is just the sort of government intrusion that makes me never want to hire anyone.
So expecting to you to not discriminate against people because of their color, age, religion, etc. is too much "government intrusion" for you. Are you advocating repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? If so then I think your priorities are mixed up.
Absolutely, choose the "unsustainable" quick road to development. Undeveloped countries have high birth rates. Developed countries have low birth rates. Once the people are all comparatively rich they will *demand* birth control. Then their population will stabilize and they can start buying organic lattes, driving hybrid cars, and generally hugging trees like I do.
Our goal wasn’t to evaluate the security of the scheme as deployed by Amazon, but learn more how people choose passphrases in general.
and then a few paragraphs later is the rather unsurprising observation:
significant numbers of people will blatantly ignore security advice about choosing nonsense phrases and choose things like “Manchester United” or “Harry Potter.”
So, as the summary says, to try to generalize from that to find fault with the idea of multi-word passwords is "twisting of words." That's not what the researchers were trying to find; a more accurate characterization of their findings is that, given their own choice of passphrases, a lot of people will choose something shockingly weak that is then easily guessed in a dictionary attack.
It's pretty simple. When publishers stop making fixed-price games, I stop buying their products. I won't pay a subscription fee for games I play casually (read, all games), and if you think I am going to accept yet another advertising Trojan into my house, think again.
Just to put that in perspective, the entire DARPA research budget for 2011 was 3.28 billion. This is the organization that develops a lot of the "Gee whiz" technology oft discussed right here on Slashdot. For a single company to devote more money to R&D than DARPA is just mind-blowing.
DARPA has of course done amazing things in its history, and if Google can even approach the same magnitude of results it will change the technology world. Whether it can achieve something that impressive is an open question.
Interestingly, the current DARPA director, Regina Dugan, has announced she is leaving the Pentagon to work for Google. So perhaps I am not the only one to notice the parallels... Dr. Dugan is one of a very small handful of people with experience managing multi-billion-dollar research budgets.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've taken sophomore college physics, it's not counter-intuitive at all that an efficient absorber is also an efficient emitter.
Perhaps he meant to say, "This makes it really powerful (for us) IF you just don't think about it."
I agree that's probably the intent, but the fact remains that Google Drive's terms of service allow them to publicly perform your data.
That kind of suggests putting all 60+ of Google's services under a single TOS was perhaps over-simplifying and not the best idea.
Which sounds pretty reasonable. The problem comes earlier in the "agreement,"
So the "agreement" grants Apple privileges to spy on your data and pass it along to any unspecified "third party" or their choice, if they feel like you might be doing something they dislike. I read it; I didn't sign it. I don't think anyone should.
This sounds great. I wonder, though, how one would find and vet qualified reviewers.
It's worse than that. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard applied in criminal proceedings. In civil cases, including multi-million-dollar lawsuits, the standard is much lower. The jury's conclusion must be supported "by a preponderance of the evidence."
Let's just say it seems easy, under those circumstances, for 12 laymen to be misled by whichever expert produces a thicker and/or glossier report.
(I Am Not A Lawyer but I did have the standard of evidence explained to me by a judge when I was sitting on a jury; and thankfully there was no scientific evidence presented in my case.)
What a depressingly (stereo)typical attitude: if the student is going to get a question wrong, change the question. I submit that a better approach is to change the student: identify the kinds of errors he/she produces and teach correct procedures for avoiding those errors.
In fact that's what I thought the purpose of a "test" was: to evaluate a student's knowledge, identify any deficiencies, and ideally inform remedial teaching as needed. I guess I'm old-fashioned.
I believe that depends on who's asking, and why. :-)
If only that were possible. I don't have kids in school but my impression is that public schools (in the U.S.) these days require kids to use the Web. I think keeping one's kids off the Net till they are 13 or so could be a sensible decision for some parents, but unfortunately the government officials who run the schools deny us that option.
Or you could just step on the clutch. One more reason to drive stick. :-)
Bad decisions generally don't benefit the economy. It's certainly possible the elimination of your product line was a bad decision. However, companies must be free to make bad decisions so they are also free to make good decisions. It is also possible the decision to eliminate your product line was only bad from your point of view. If it generates a lot of sales, but has low profit margins, the company may indeed be better off getting out of that business and investing their (limited) capital in more profitable lines.
I think your story is an example of how in the market, money is efficient to re-allocate and people are not. So workers, individuals like you, are casualties when businesses re-align themselves. This is what I believe economists call "structural unemployment" and it is generally regarded as a necessary evil. It is also the best argument in favor of government policies like the unemployment insurance that sustained you (in admittedly meager fashion) until you were able to find a new job and again become a productive contributor the the economy.
The needle on my irony meter just twitched. :-)
If you parse the ridiculously long sentence in the summary, what Arizona is trying to outlaw is using obscene language, suggest lewd acts, or threaten violence. The "intent to annoy" thing is a necessary condition for the post to be in violation of this law. So if I say "the Arizona legislature can go fuck themselves. I want to beat them all with a golf club," the state still has to prove I did it with intent to 'terrify, intimidate, threaten, harass, annoy or offend" and if they can't then my obscene, suggestive, violent language was OK.
I'm not defending the law. I hate it. I'm only saying that sounding off on a misinterpretation of its text, based on the word "annoy," fails to grasp the intent of the law.
On the other hand, if her company is still stuck in "startup mode" after 11 years, maybe she is not the person to listen to.
I'm not claiming that all regulation is good. The examples you cite (regulating price of electricity, the TSA) are clear examples of stupid, counterproductive regulation.
My position is that without Federal law to suppress a host of discriminatory practices, the bigots would still be in charge. Without Federal law to prevent dioxin in the ground water, companies would still be dumping toxic waste. The quality of life we take for granted did not magically emerge as we all became enlightened. It required the big stick of government regulation to stop the elite from abusing the rest of the public.
All of the above and more are from the postwar period. I don't think you can have it both ways: 2012 respect for civil rights is only possible through 2012 regulation. One could say the same about clean water, food safety, highway safety, and other important issues.
I don't see how it's feasible for a retail store to match Amazon's prices. The whole point of Amazon is that they have lower overhead due to lack of a store front, sales staff etc. and they pass that savings along to the consumer. A retail store cannot match their prices and operate at a profit.
So expecting to you to not discriminate against people because of their color, age, religion, etc. is too much "government intrusion" for you. Are you advocating repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? If so then I think your priorities are mixed up.
Absolutely, choose the "unsustainable" quick road to development. Undeveloped countries have high birth rates. Developed countries have low birth rates. Once the people are all comparatively rich they will *demand* birth control. Then their population will stabilize and they can start buying organic lattes, driving hybrid cars, and generally hugging trees like I do.
Anything that offends a jury of 12 bourgeois citizens. Be afraid.
and then a few paragraphs later is the rather unsurprising observation:
So, as the summary says, to try to generalize from that to find fault with the idea of multi-word passwords is "twisting of words." That's not what the researchers were trying to find; a more accurate characterization of their findings is that, given their own choice of passphrases, a lot of people will choose something shockingly weak that is then easily guessed in a dictionary attack.
It's pretty simple. When publishers stop making fixed-price games, I stop buying their products. I won't pay a subscription fee for games I play casually (read, all games), and if you think I am going to accept yet another advertising Trojan into my house, think again.
Just to put that in perspective, the entire DARPA research budget for 2011 was 3.28 billion. This is the organization that develops a lot of the "Gee whiz" technology oft discussed right here on Slashdot. For a single company to devote more money to R&D than DARPA is just mind-blowing.
DARPA has of course done amazing things in its history, and if Google can even approach the same magnitude of results it will change the technology world. Whether it can achieve something that impressive is an open question.
Interestingly, the current DARPA director, Regina Dugan, has announced she is leaving the Pentagon to work for Google. So perhaps I am not the only one to notice the parallels ... Dr. Dugan is one of a very small handful of people with experience managing multi-billion-dollar research budgets.
What could possibly go wrong with a capability to wirelessly update your car's firmware?
The point of a true education is to enable one to find *intrinsic* motivation. The trouble is, most of what passes for "education" is merely training.