What exactly do you think this is, a ban all pesticides and gm crops statement? If so, you're reading something I'm not. This is a study (methodology questions aside) about does this specific thing give you cancer. Since, as you've pointed out, so many people eat the food being tested, it deserves scrutiny.
It's simple. We test EVERYTHING to see if it causes cancer, and remove the ones that do. In this case, if the data supports the conclusions, that particular company can take the billions it's made so far on those products and use it to develop new ones.
Re:Roomba sucks (but not in the way I paid for)
on
What's Next For iRobot?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I have the 570, and love it. I've replaced parts along the way, but it runs at least 3 times a week, every week, and keeps my floors spotless. It runs while I'm out of the house, and I only have to empty it once a week or so. The main work to do is to keep stuff off of my floor so it doesn't get stuck, but that helps keep my place tidy.
It broke a little while back, and while waiting for the part I had to pull out my old vacuum. That was a terrible experience after having a Roomba for a couple of years now. Btw, your issue of never it finishing out in the open, while exactly true, is not a problem if you have the remote for it. Took me a few times of crawling under the bed to realize that.
You really don't understand the situation. People like me are paid to be paranoid, and to make sure that our company's data is safe from prying eyes as much as absolutely possible (In fact, we are legally responsible for it). I cannot afford to just toss our data out there and not worry about it. My job is to mitigate all of the possible things an outside entity could do to access that data. And fyi, a provider can setup the server such that they cannot read the data on it while still being able to administer the server itself.
And to the trade representative, boo-fucking-hoo. Instead of allowing US companies to guarantee data privacy, even when hosted outside of the country, the Patriot Act forces them to guarantee the opposite. As much as I would like to use a lot of the cloud services out there, I can't just because of that.
There is clear signs of piracy, that was intentional. Close down ALL of it, all the newspapers, the tv stations, everything, and sort it out in court first.
Can you imagine this in any other engineering discipline? Oh yes, we built the bridge but there are a few hundred unnecessary iron girders that we forgot to remove...
Those would be perfectly valid if upon discovering your girder was 3 inches too short you could instantly create a copy of it, set the original aside, then alter and test that copy of the girder. Then you might leave a few extras lying around.
A study that is going to cost millions+ of dollars and be obsolete before the study is even over because a new generation of electronic devices will be out.. And... you think conducting the study is going to somehow make forgetful people... less forgetful?
New devices that will use a new form of radiation perhaps? Radio will not be changing anytime soon. And the airlines and manufacturers can then start working with the knowledge gained to mitigate the problem if there is one. If not, the world is better for the knowledge gained.
The best possible outcome of such a study is that it costs a lot of money to buy people an extra 20 minutes per flight of guilt-free tweets about how badly they need to pee and would they just turn off the fasten seatbelt sign already.
Are you sure you should be reading this site? I'm responding to this on my tablet while taking a dump, what's the difference? (Ok I'm not, but it wouldn't be the first time...)
Anything else is only going to be worse. Lets say the study finds some link between devices and aircraft malfunctions.. the TSA will overreact in all sorts of ways that have no hope of solving the problem, like it always does. At great, corrupt expense.
I have no reasonable response to that, it is true.
There's a difference between "society" paying for things, and the airline industry performing due diligence. It isn't the airline industry's business or responsibility to cure cancer or worry about auto safety. It is, however, exactly their business to ensure flight safety, especially for any circumstances that they know will happen thousands of times daily . If something may cause a problem on a flight, especially when there is "anecdotal evidence" for it, they have to know, if only as a responsibility to their shareholders. Plane goes down, they get sued, no matter the cause short of being shot down.
It's not the mild inconvenience that's the problem, it's the people that either forget or refuse to turn theirs off. Out of the 75 people I mentioned per flight, 1 in 75 is a fair (and again, I think, conservative) guess at how many will forget or refuse. That's 1 per flight, 28,000 times a day.
Come to think of it, isn't that anecdotal evidence in itself that there is likely no problem?
Studies cost money. Everything costs money. With a finite amount of money, you prioritize. And this isn't a big enough problem to warrant spending money studing.
Seriously? The number that a casual Google search shows is about 28,000 commercial flights a day. Multiply that by a conservative 75 people a flight and you get at least 2,100,000 people taking a flight per day, just in the US . You think that doesn't warrant an all-out investigation to resolve the questions involved in a methodical and scientific manner, regardless of the cost?
Perhaps the airlines are more interested in monetizing the use of said devices and the studies would possibly show something different than they might want. I have a hard time believing the major airplane vendors have not already done extensive lab and real-world testing on this, at their lawyers insistence.
They are the Tacoma Narrows bridge of the IT security world now. They will be the textbook case example of the generations of students, with the entire repertoire of what not to do every step of the way, especially the one about not pissing-off a malevolent, anonymous mass.
If a client cares about that more than all of the problems with IE6, then they should not have a position in their company that allows them to make IT-related decisions.
It isn't always the regular staff that are against moving up from IE6. I have a situation where one business we work with is still on IE6, and the IT staff are the ones against changing it. They have the "If it seems to work don't fix it" mentality about it, and trying to convince them that it is the source of a problem is like banging my head against a wall...
That is questionable. I believe the original case that determined that was overturned on appeal.
Since I've already paid a levy for copyrighted materials, I (or more accurately, my lawyer) would argue that I've paid for the material that is being copied.
The CCRA and the various other artists groups maintain that the levy is solely for format shifting. This personally blows me away that they would claim this, and expect a person to buy a copy for each device you want to use the media on.
Finally, this levy is brilliant. It bypasses the conservative's attempt to make copyright violations illegal. By adding the fee, you give the okay to piracy by charging what is, in essence, a pirate licence.
If only that were the case. In reality, we will get screwed by the conservatives who will either 1. Implement ACTA, saying they have no choice, or 2. Come up with another terrible set of laws, complete with DMCA style anti-circumvention, and probably little or no fair use, saying it's based on their consultations with Canadians. This new law (or ACTA implementation) will of course negate all previous laws.
He got asked about it and instead of giving the honest answer (i.e. "I dunno, but I'll ask my experts and come back to you") he made up some answer. Why? Because for some odd reason people expect politicians to have an answer for everything.
I gotta call bullshit on this one. As stated earlier, it's specifically his job to know this. He is writing a law that he knows will erode personal rights of privacy, and also knows the backlash that is possible. If he is not fully aware that he has "enhanced" the story, then he has no business writing the law in the first place.
The last flight hijacked that originated in the US before 9/11 was in 1976. What does that say about how they were doing their before 9/11? As we found out, it says absolutely nothing.
I would think that the new pictures would be some of the most closely scrutinized in history. A lot of people on both sides would want to authenticate or discredit them.
China, on the other hand, would probably love to be able to show the landing areas being completely devoid of equipment or flags. And, any pictures that are produced would be scrutinized, pixel by pixel, like the ones that were shown to be doctored by the Chinese last time.
Slashdot Mirror
Who'd have thought you'd still have harbor pilots in space. Same difference though, I guess.
No
What exactly do you think this is, a ban all pesticides and gm crops statement? If so, you're reading something I'm not. This is a study (methodology questions aside) about does this specific thing give you cancer. Since, as you've pointed out, so many people eat the food being tested, it deserves scrutiny.
It's simple. We test EVERYTHING to see if it causes cancer, and remove the ones that do. In this case, if the data supports the conclusions, that particular company can take the billions it's made so far on those products and use it to develop new ones.
I have the 570, and love it. I've replaced parts along the way, but it runs at least 3 times a week, every week, and keeps my floors spotless. It runs while I'm out of the house, and I only have to empty it once a week or so. The main work to do is to keep stuff off of my floor so it doesn't get stuck, but that helps keep my place tidy.
It broke a little while back, and while waiting for the part I had to pull out my old vacuum. That was a terrible experience after having a Roomba for a couple of years now. Btw, your issue of never it finishing out in the open, while exactly true, is not a problem if you have the remote for it. Took me a few times of crawling under the bed to realize that.
Apple? I'd be a lot more interested to see what showed up for Microsoft.
People who will see that screen _already_ have bought an original DVD...
Exactly. The only thing you should see is a 5 second "Thank you for supporting our business".
You really don't understand the situation. People like me are paid to be paranoid, and to make sure that our company's data is safe from prying eyes as much as absolutely possible (In fact, we are legally responsible for it). I cannot afford to just toss our data out there and not worry about it. My job is to mitigate all of the possible things an outside entity could do to access that data. And fyi, a provider can setup the server such that they cannot read the data on it while still being able to administer the server itself.
And to the trade representative, boo-fucking-hoo. Instead of allowing US companies to guarantee data privacy, even when hosted outside of the country, the Patriot Act forces them to guarantee the opposite. As much as I would like to use a lot of the cloud services out there, I can't just because of that.
There is clear signs of piracy, that was intentional. Close down ALL of it, all the newspapers, the tv stations, everything, and sort it out in court first.
Thats what they did to Megaupload, fair is fair.
Can you imagine this in any other engineering discipline? Oh yes, we built the bridge but there are a few hundred unnecessary iron girders that we forgot to remove...
Those would be perfectly valid if upon discovering your girder was 3 inches too short you could instantly create a copy of it, set the original aside, then alter and test that copy of the girder. Then you might leave a few extras lying around.
I bet he's off to finally build a beowulf cluster...
A study that is going to cost millions+ of dollars and be obsolete before the study is even over because a new generation of electronic devices will be out.. And... you think conducting the study is going to somehow make forgetful people ... less forgetful?
New devices that will use a new form of radiation perhaps? Radio will not be changing anytime soon. And the airlines and manufacturers can then start working with the knowledge gained to mitigate the problem if there is one. If not, the world is better for the knowledge gained.
The best possible outcome of such a study is that it costs a lot of money to buy people an extra 20 minutes per flight of guilt-free tweets about how badly they need to pee and would they just turn off the fasten seatbelt sign already.
Are you sure you should be reading this site? I'm responding to this on my tablet while taking a dump, what's the difference? (Ok I'm not, but it wouldn't be the first time...)
Anything else is only going to be worse. Lets say the study finds some link between devices and aircraft malfunctions.. the TSA will overreact in all sorts of ways that have no hope of solving the problem, like it always does. At great, corrupt expense.
I have no reasonable response to that, it is true.
There's a difference between "society" paying for things, and the airline industry performing due diligence. It isn't the airline industry's business or responsibility to cure cancer or worry about auto safety. It is, however, exactly their business to ensure flight safety, especially for any circumstances that they know will happen thousands of times daily . If something may cause a problem on a flight, especially when there is "anecdotal evidence" for it, they have to know, if only as a responsibility to their shareholders. Plane goes down, they get sued, no matter the cause short of being shot down.
It's not the mild inconvenience that's the problem, it's the people that either forget or refuse to turn theirs off. Out of the 75 people I mentioned per flight, 1 in 75 is a fair (and again, I think, conservative) guess at how many will forget or refuse. That's 1 per flight, 28,000 times a day.
Come to think of it, isn't that anecdotal evidence in itself that there is likely no problem?
Studies cost money. Everything costs money. With a finite amount of money, you prioritize. And this isn't a big enough problem to warrant spending money studing.
Seriously? The number that a casual Google search shows is about 28,000 commercial flights a day. Multiply that by a conservative 75 people a flight and you get at least 2,100,000 people taking a flight per day, just in the US . You think that doesn't warrant an all-out investigation to resolve the questions involved in a methodical and scientific manner, regardless of the cost?
Perhaps the airlines are more interested in monetizing the use of said devices and the studies would possibly show something different than they might want. I have a hard time believing the major airplane vendors have not already done extensive lab and real-world testing on this, at their lawyers insistence.
They are the Tacoma Narrows bridge of the IT security world now. They will be the textbook case example of the generations of students, with the entire repertoire of what not to do every step of the way, especially the one about not pissing-off a malevolent, anonymous mass.
If a client cares about that more than all of the problems with IE6, then they should not have a position in their company that allows them to make IT-related decisions.
It isn't always the regular staff that are against moving up from IE6. I have a situation where one business we work with is still on IE6, and the IT staff are the ones against changing it. They have the "If it seems to work don't fix it" mentality about it, and trying to convince them that it is the source of a problem is like banging my head against a wall...
First, it is not illegal to download music.
That is questionable. I believe the original case that determined that was overturned on appeal.
Since I've already paid a levy for copyrighted materials, I (or more accurately, my lawyer) would argue that I've paid for the material that is being copied.
The CCRA and the various other artists groups maintain that the levy is solely for format shifting. This personally blows me away that they would claim this, and expect a person to buy a copy for each device you want to use the media on.
Finally, this levy is brilliant. It bypasses the conservative's attempt to make copyright violations illegal. By adding the fee, you give the okay to piracy by charging what is, in essence, a pirate licence.
If only that were the case. In reality, we will get screwed by the conservatives who will either 1. Implement ACTA, saying they have no choice, or 2. Come up with another terrible set of laws, complete with DMCA style anti-circumvention, and probably little or no fair use, saying it's based on their consultations with Canadians. This new law (or ACTA implementation) will of course negate all previous laws.
He got asked about it and instead of giving the honest answer (i.e. "I dunno, but I'll ask my experts and come back to you") he made up some answer. Why? Because for some odd reason people expect politicians to have an answer for everything.
I gotta call bullshit on this one. As stated earlier, it's specifically his job to know this. He is writing a law that he knows will erode personal rights of privacy, and also knows the backlash that is possible. If he is not fully aware that he has "enhanced" the story, then he has no business writing the law in the first place.
People want to believe that the stereotype is real though, and you don't help the situation.
Conservative christians are doing just fine at reinforcing that stereotype by themselves. Oklahoma-Morality-Proclamation-blames-gays-porn-abortion-for-economic-woe
I know, but he was a disgruntled employee with inside access, and didn't have to go through normal security, so I'm didn't count that.
I knew I should have tossed in a disclaimer for that one.
The last flight hijacked that originated in the US before 9/11 was in 1976. What does that say about how they were doing their before 9/11? As we found out, it says absolutely nothing.
Or you volunteer, and be the one to get the placebo.
Not foolproof, but see this: Chinese Moon Photo Doctored, Crater Moved.
I would think that the new pictures would be some of the most closely scrutinized in history. A lot of people on both sides would want to authenticate or discredit them.
No, because if NASA does it, we would then need to wait for another nation to land people there to see if the equipment is made of foam and plywood.
China, on the other hand, would probably love to be able to show the landing areas being completely devoid of equipment or flags. And, any pictures that are produced would be scrutinized, pixel by pixel, like the ones that were shown to be doctored by the Chinese last time.