Well, I mean to say, I'm told by the people that work there. Specifically the people maintaining their servers. They bust a lot of ass and they're brilliant too. We don't have the control in the end that we think we do even if we're keeping data on our computers at home, especially when that computer is connected to any network.
You have the potential of losing email anywhere you store it--it's trading the server for your desktop, in a way. Every new solution used en masse will have new problems. I suppose I'm always a lot more worried about hard drive meltdowns then server problems--someone takes a lot better care of those, or so I'm told.
I've recently read a lot of articles about people being screwed in various ways because crimes they either didn't commit or crimes that were supposed to be expunged from their records were never correctly removed, and the errors are perpetuated in such databases that are lucky to be checked annually. People reported being denied promotions, jobs at all, being fired, not qualifying for loans or mortgages--the works. I think we should focus on some QA before we leap to what will surely become an error-ridden and ungainly system, let alone the security issues.
You BET Microsoft has tried to stop you using anything but their stuff. Over the last few months (it seems) in Atlanta the radio has been saturated with ads with dramatized stories about how someone downloaded 'counterfeit software' (which is alluded to in a way that it could be either stolen MS stuff or non-MS products) and it ruins the business in question. The ads end with the announcer telling you to install Windows Defender and to make sure every computer you buy comes with pre-installed MS software. I don't know how many other markets these have hit but it's nauseating how overboard they are after a couple times.
There's a huge difference in the artists featured and Weird Al, which is that Weird Al uses references and music that specifically DO appeal to larger numbers of people, and if they don't appeal to them, at least most people can get them. I think there's a specific group of people out there that want something that only they and a few people get (partly because it makes them feel good and elitist).
That being said, it would have to be GOOD, in the ways that Weird Al can be considered good by SOME objective standards, to become any more popular, and it's not that. I'm subjected to that crap when I drive anywhere with my boyfriend, and having heard too many albums now, I feel very comfortable saying it's just NOT GOOD in any musical sense or genre. NOT trying to bait anyone, but it's not.
I understand in a detached sense why folks at places like MarketWatch would ask such questions like "it's SO obvious that Company A could make so much more profit by doing these simple things" and never seem to get that there really are companies out there whose goals do not consist entirely of 1. PROFIT. The service, the product, the atmosphere are the important things here, and in the end, what exactly would they do with all the extra profit? It seems somewhat likely that Craig decided that he was just fine with the money that he was making and what he was paying for and he didn't need to be constantly searching out new sources of revenue. For some people, there really is such a thing as 'enough'.
I've noticed that the best way to find problems with your own product is to have your employees (forced to) use it on a daily basis. I'm no Microsoft fan nor a software engineer but it seems to me to be the quickest way to find holes that testing didn't uncover. Now that in itself presents an interesting question: does that make it harder to find SECURITY problems if you're testing your product behind all those corporate protections (assuming they work)? It's no real-world experience to do that.
Considering as I've been told that they're firing sysops and the NOC in Atlanta at least and outsourcing the departments. They didn't want to pay for their experienced personnel, I suppose.
What is it? There's a generic appeal to working for web companies like Yahoo and Google, but there's a specific appeal to some of them, like putting out new projects, working on your interests, so on. I see Yahoo as having shared the generic appeal of those company types in the past and now they feel more second tier, both to users and to jobseekers. If you aren't appealing as more than just a job in the field, it's going to be hard to get the people that can really help you be innovative, flexible and forward-thinking, especially when you're competing with companies (like Google) that not only have that image publicly but (at least in my experience) deliver for their employees. Anyone out there working for Yahoo? What drew you to it, what keeps you there, what seems to be the type of new hire, and what draws them?
It's probably a slight cliche now that the American consumer is somewhat programmed to want the newest and shiniest version of whatever item it is they already have, though we've seen above that professionals, companies and overall the average user don't apply that to software, and that companies who provide software and new versions of it would like us to treat software the way we generally do other products. Why do all of you suppose that Microsoft is failing at this (acknowledging the 'if it aint broke' thinking already) where, for instance, Ford pioneered the concept of 'having the latest model'? I've had some of my own thoughts about the differences in the corporate and the public eye about software purchasing, primarily along the lines of it not being considered a purchase so much as an investment in terms of initial capital, upkeep, time to learn and necessary requirements to troubleshoot and fix. I'm interested to see what the community here thinks.
It would be good for people (especially without kids) to really understand why SIDS is still a problem, and that's precisely because WE DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAPPENS. No matter what you do right, no matter how much you know about babies in general and yours in particular, the kid can still croak in the cradle or crib, in another room or right behind you. Finding something that helps detect it before they die is phenomenally wonderful. I'm not going to suggest that every parent knows exactly how to do every right thing for their infant and that children don't end up dying from parental ignorance or (god forbid) abuse and neglect (remember the baby recently used as a bludgeon?) but there are a lot of parents out there who die a little more when they read about how it was because they were bad parents that their baby mysteriously passed away. So, be careful with your assumptions. (Don't know why I ask in this forum....)
I am unsure as to the availability of our model anymore, but we have a ReplayTV DVR box and it records commercials and then can skip them or not. Some channels it has more trouble with (e.g. Bravo, which runs West Wing marathons). For people not keen on building their own stuff, or want to give gifts, maybe this is a solution for you.
You absolutely have to use controls for your results to mean something in a definitive sense. As someone who's been involved in conducting clinical trials a great deal (plus my family members do the same as research psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) there are very strict rules for what you can and can't do. This includes informing the members of the study that they may receive a treatment that is in fact a placebo, but they generally won't be told if that's what they got till they are finished with the study.
This isn't Tuskegee and it's not One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest either. This is the age of informed consent.
And mine won't be any different, but at least I'll make a point I keep not seeing.
Who says you have to work in the Bay area for Google? Google has offices all over the world, and a lot of people I recently helped get jobs there are in NY or Atlanta. I don't know firsthand about MS, but I imagine not everyone is in Redmond. For that matter, Google's there too.
It's not just about the company, it's about what you do. And what you might want to do in the future. It might appeal to you that at Google your products are used and that if you decide you want to work with another group that's what you get to do, and not in several months either. I've never heard anyone at MS talk about that sort of thing and I am sure they would.
Remember that these days, people also don't work at the same company for 40 years and retire and neither of those companies expects it of you. Be open to change in the next 5 years. The fact that you have offers from both of these places means you'll have offers from plenty of other places if you look for them too, now or later.
We've discussed how unpleasant cell phone conversations on planes would be, and have hoped that perhaps if they become enabled and allowed that there would be planes for people who will use their cell phones on which there will also be all people with small children who have not been sedated.
Thank'ee fer th' logo ye be suggestin'. We enjoy celebratin' horlidays at Google.
As ye may imagine, it be terrible difficult fer us t' choose which events t' be celebratin' on our site. We be hav'in a long list o' horlidays that we'd be liken' ter celebrate in th' future. We be hav'in ter balance this rotatin' calendar with th' need te be maintainin' the likeness o' the Google homepage.
Some horlidays that we no' been celebratin' in the past will be rotatin' into our horliday doodles fer future years.
I'd have to agree with you and suggest that instead the article and commentary title here are slightly mislieading...if that were all a typical user read, s/he'd have the impression that merely opening a PDF file would make the computer vulnerable to exploitation in some fashion. The two methods described in this eWeek article don't appear to be anything of the sort. I think the majority of people now on any platform and likely the vast majority of more highly literate (in a computer sense) users don't allow any program to open web pages without the user expressly consenting or manually clicking.The second 'vulnerability' applies to people using Adobe Professional, if I'm not mistaken. That implies to me you have to be using Adobe Professional to BE vulnerable, though I suppose I could be wrong. It looks like there's something potentially improper or loose in some sense about the way that Adobe (maybe just the professional version) is connecting to the web or specific servers?Either way, this definitely feels a tad more alarmist then it should be. I guess it'll depend on what the general news media do when they cover the story.
They made a copier that could lift the toner back off the paper. I remember it being featured in the NY Times and forwarding it to the college department I did work-study in at the time, a place that such an item would actually work out pretty well, since most paper stops being useful and stays in-house.
It's always been recognized that children under the age of 13 can do the following: unknowingly disclose personal information that makes them vulnerable to people skilled in exploiting and manipulating individuals with limited experience in some areas (like avoiding being prey) and lying about their ages. It's not going to be possible under most circumstances to background check a user's personal information such as his or her age--it's not feasible, it's expensive, and most of the time it's just a waste of time.
So why do we even have this act where we require people to declare that they are 13, 18, 21 and up and so on? Well, if it's just that, it doesn't do any good. A 12 year old won't necessarily understand why they are supposde to be at least 13 to have an account on some site or interact with certain people and material, and that's where I think sites should probably, to comply with the spirit of the protection laid out in the law, advise people when registering on their sites WHY they are asking for ages, not just that they are complying with some particular legistation. The child who's aware of the potential that his or her personal information or details inadvertantly disclosed through action or writing on a site or in chat or on a blog like Xanga is much more likely, in my humble opinion and experience with such people, is going to be more careful about their information.
We protect children because they don't always have the experience or perspective to think of the things that they could be doing or saying that make them vulnerable to acts by predatory individuals. I don't think so far the legislation is achieving that sort of goal because it's not directed at the people who are doing the revealing, it's been directed at the site owners and parents. These people have some responsibility for sure, but if you ignore the kids out there, you're just asking for trouble.
I'd be interested to hear from people who own or run sites like Xanga on what they think about their responsibilities, both in the letter and the spirit of the law, and how they think things in any respect might be changed to be more informative and protective of a potentially vulnerable class of Internat users.
Well, sort of. Really, the person who stole your money has your money, or whoever he gave it to. In my experience, the dispute process is pretty quick....you tell them which purchase was last before the card or number was compromised or whatever, and then they roll all of that back. I think the entire process, when it happened to me, took maybe a week. Perhaps it too depends on your bank and so on, and certainly in my case it was very easy to tell from any standpoint what was far outside of my spending habits and radius.
So, it's not really that they the bank have your money, but there's some lag in getting reimbursed for being a victim. If it were a credit card it would be very similar, because everyone has some spending limit on the card, so you are effectively losing that margin that you COULD be spending...
Sort of....most banks hold you liable for a certain amount of the fraudulent charge if your debit card is stolen, but not if you report it first and quickly, and even if they catch it and you don't, you're only liable for that amount...so if you lost $2000, losing 50 to the bank to get the rest back is a better deal.
That's not entirely accurate. That salary range is somewhat accurate for bioscience and some physical science baccalaureates. Postdocs make a notable amount more. More depends on your actual field, your specialties, and your region.
Exposure and familiarity are what aid accessibility, which in my mind is one of the issues for the average home computer user in choosing what platform to practice. Who is the target for Linux? If it's really everyone, then it might be that some of the naming schema need to change and take that into account. If it's going to continue to be for the more trained, inquisitive and overall learned user, then it's not nearly so much of a problem, but when I think about why more people use other platforms, that is one of the salient points...far from THE only or THE major issue, but certainly one.
Are we helping bring Linux type platforms to more users across the knowledge spectrum or are we unthinkingly hindering them?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I mean to say, I'm told by the people that work there. Specifically the people maintaining their servers. They bust a lot of ass and they're brilliant too. We don't have the control in the end that we think we do even if we're keeping data on our computers at home, especially when that computer is connected to any network.
You have the potential of losing email anywhere you store it--it's trading the server for your desktop, in a way. Every new solution used en masse will have new problems. I suppose I'm always a lot more worried about hard drive meltdowns then server problems--someone takes a lot better care of those, or so I'm told.
I've recently read a lot of articles about people being screwed in various ways because crimes they either didn't commit or crimes that were supposed to be expunged from their records were never correctly removed, and the errors are perpetuated in such databases that are lucky to be checked annually. People reported being denied promotions, jobs at all, being fired, not qualifying for loans or mortgages--the works. I think we should focus on some QA before we leap to what will surely become an error-ridden and ungainly system, let alone the security issues.
You BET Microsoft has tried to stop you using anything but their stuff. Over the last few months (it seems) in Atlanta the radio has been saturated with ads with dramatized stories about how someone downloaded 'counterfeit software' (which is alluded to in a way that it could be either stolen MS stuff or non-MS products) and it ruins the business in question. The ads end with the announcer telling you to install Windows Defender and to make sure every computer you buy comes with pre-installed MS software. I don't know how many other markets these have hit but it's nauseating how overboard they are after a couple times.
There's a huge difference in the artists featured and Weird Al, which is that Weird Al uses references and music that specifically DO appeal to larger numbers of people, and if they don't appeal to them, at least most people can get them. I think there's a specific group of people out there that want something that only they and a few people get (partly because it makes them feel good and elitist). That being said, it would have to be GOOD, in the ways that Weird Al can be considered good by SOME objective standards, to become any more popular, and it's not that. I'm subjected to that crap when I drive anywhere with my boyfriend, and having heard too many albums now, I feel very comfortable saying it's just NOT GOOD in any musical sense or genre. NOT trying to bait anyone, but it's not.
I understand in a detached sense why folks at places like MarketWatch would ask such questions like "it's SO obvious that Company A could make so much more profit by doing these simple things" and never seem to get that there really are companies out there whose goals do not consist entirely of 1. PROFIT. The service, the product, the atmosphere are the important things here, and in the end, what exactly would they do with all the extra profit? It seems somewhat likely that Craig decided that he was just fine with the money that he was making and what he was paying for and he didn't need to be constantly searching out new sources of revenue. For some people, there really is such a thing as 'enough'.
I've noticed that the best way to find problems with your own product is to have your employees (forced to) use it on a daily basis. I'm no Microsoft fan nor a software engineer but it seems to me to be the quickest way to find holes that testing didn't uncover. Now that in itself presents an interesting question: does that make it harder to find SECURITY problems if you're testing your product behind all those corporate protections (assuming they work)? It's no real-world experience to do that.
Considering as I've been told that they're firing sysops and the NOC in Atlanta at least and outsourcing the departments. They didn't want to pay for their experienced personnel, I suppose.
What is it? There's a generic appeal to working for web companies like Yahoo and Google, but there's a specific appeal to some of them, like putting out new projects, working on your interests, so on. I see Yahoo as having shared the generic appeal of those company types in the past and now they feel more second tier, both to users and to jobseekers. If you aren't appealing as more than just a job in the field, it's going to be hard to get the people that can really help you be innovative, flexible and forward-thinking, especially when you're competing with companies (like Google) that not only have that image publicly but (at least in my experience) deliver for their employees. Anyone out there working for Yahoo? What drew you to it, what keeps you there, what seems to be the type of new hire, and what draws them?
It's probably a slight cliche now that the American consumer is somewhat programmed to want the newest and shiniest version of whatever item it is they already have, though we've seen above that professionals, companies and overall the average user don't apply that to software, and that companies who provide software and new versions of it would like us to treat software the way we generally do other products. Why do all of you suppose that Microsoft is failing at this (acknowledging the 'if it aint broke' thinking already) where, for instance, Ford pioneered the concept of 'having the latest model'? I've had some of my own thoughts about the differences in the corporate and the public eye about software purchasing, primarily along the lines of it not being considered a purchase so much as an investment in terms of initial capital, upkeep, time to learn and necessary requirements to troubleshoot and fix. I'm interested to see what the community here thinks.
It would be good for people (especially without kids) to really understand why SIDS is still a problem, and that's precisely because WE DON'T KNOW WHY IT HAPPENS. No matter what you do right, no matter how much you know about babies in general and yours in particular, the kid can still croak in the cradle or crib, in another room or right behind you. Finding something that helps detect it before they die is phenomenally wonderful. I'm not going to suggest that every parent knows exactly how to do every right thing for their infant and that children don't end up dying from parental ignorance or (god forbid) abuse and neglect (remember the baby recently used as a bludgeon?) but there are a lot of parents out there who die a little more when they read about how it was because they were bad parents that their baby mysteriously passed away. So, be careful with your assumptions. (Don't know why I ask in this forum....)
I am unsure as to the availability of our model anymore, but we have a ReplayTV DVR box and it records commercials and then can skip them or not. Some channels it has more trouble with (e.g. Bravo, which runs West Wing marathons). For people not keen on building their own stuff, or want to give gifts, maybe this is a solution for you.
You absolutely have to use controls for your results to mean something in a definitive sense. As someone who's been involved in conducting clinical trials a great deal (plus my family members do the same as research psychiatrists and clinical psychologists) there are very strict rules for what you can and can't do. This includes informing the members of the study that they may receive a treatment that is in fact a placebo, but they generally won't be told if that's what they got till they are finished with the study. This isn't Tuskegee and it's not One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest either. This is the age of informed consent.
And mine won't be any different, but at least I'll make a point I keep not seeing. Who says you have to work in the Bay area for Google? Google has offices all over the world, and a lot of people I recently helped get jobs there are in NY or Atlanta. I don't know firsthand about MS, but I imagine not everyone is in Redmond. For that matter, Google's there too. It's not just about the company, it's about what you do. And what you might want to do in the future. It might appeal to you that at Google your products are used and that if you decide you want to work with another group that's what you get to do, and not in several months either. I've never heard anyone at MS talk about that sort of thing and I am sure they would. Remember that these days, people also don't work at the same company for 40 years and retire and neither of those companies expects it of you. Be open to change in the next 5 years. The fact that you have offers from both of these places means you'll have offers from plenty of other places if you look for them too, now or later.
We've discussed how unpleasant cell phone conversations on planes would be, and have hoped that perhaps if they become enabled and allowed that there would be planes for people who will use their cell phones on which there will also be all people with small children who have not been sedated.
But this reply shows they have the day at hearrrrrrrrrrrrrt, matey.
4 476:
from http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=3
From: help@google.com
Subject: Re: [#73859603]
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:44:27 -0700
Ahoy mate,
Thank'ee fer th' logo ye be suggestin'. We enjoy celebratin' horlidays at Google.
As ye may imagine, it be terrible difficult fer us t' choose which events t' be celebratin' on our site. We be hav'in a long list o' horlidays that we'd be liken' ter celebrate in th' future. We be hav'in ter balance this rotatin' calendar with th' need te be maintainin' the likeness o' the Google homepage.
Some horlidays that we no' been celebratin' in the past will be rotatin' into our horliday doodles fer future years.
Please remember ye can be visitin' any o' our doodles at http://www.google.com/holidaylogos.html
Arrrrrrr,
The Google Team
(My apologies for the above formatting, I was editing and the cat walked on the laptop, which normally doesn't result in a permanent mistake!)
I'd have to agree with you and suggest that instead the article and commentary title here are slightly mislieading...if that were all a typical user read, s/he'd have the impression that merely opening a PDF file would make the computer vulnerable to exploitation in some fashion. The two methods described in this eWeek article don't appear to be anything of the sort. I think the majority of people now on any platform and likely the vast majority of more highly literate (in a computer sense) users don't allow any program to open web pages without the user expressly consenting or manually clicking. The second 'vulnerability' applies to people using Adobe Professional, if I'm not mistaken. That implies to me you have to be using Adobe Professional to BE vulnerable, though I suppose I could be wrong. It looks like there's something potentially improper or loose in some sense about the way that Adobe (maybe just the professional version) is connecting to the web or specific servers? Either way, this definitely feels a tad more alarmist then it should be. I guess it'll depend on what the general news media do when they cover the story.
They made a copier that could lift the toner back off the paper. I remember it being featured in the NY Times and forwarding it to the college department I did work-study in at the time, a place that such an item would actually work out pretty well, since most paper stops being useful and stays in-house.
It's always been recognized that children under the age of 13 can do the following: unknowingly disclose personal information that makes them vulnerable to people skilled in exploiting and manipulating individuals with limited experience in some areas (like avoiding being prey) and lying about their ages. It's not going to be possible under most circumstances to background check a user's personal information such as his or her age--it's not feasible, it's expensive, and most of the time it's just a waste of time. So why do we even have this act where we require people to declare that they are 13, 18, 21 and up and so on? Well, if it's just that, it doesn't do any good. A 12 year old won't necessarily understand why they are supposde to be at least 13 to have an account on some site or interact with certain people and material, and that's where I think sites should probably, to comply with the spirit of the protection laid out in the law, advise people when registering on their sites WHY they are asking for ages, not just that they are complying with some particular legistation. The child who's aware of the potential that his or her personal information or details inadvertantly disclosed through action or writing on a site or in chat or on a blog like Xanga is much more likely, in my humble opinion and experience with such people, is going to be more careful about their information. We protect children because they don't always have the experience or perspective to think of the things that they could be doing or saying that make them vulnerable to acts by predatory individuals. I don't think so far the legislation is achieving that sort of goal because it's not directed at the people who are doing the revealing, it's been directed at the site owners and parents. These people have some responsibility for sure, but if you ignore the kids out there, you're just asking for trouble. I'd be interested to hear from people who own or run sites like Xanga on what they think about their responsibilities, both in the letter and the spirit of the law, and how they think things in any respect might be changed to be more informative and protective of a potentially vulnerable class of Internat users.
Well, sort of. Really, the person who stole your money has your money, or whoever he gave it to. In my experience, the dispute process is pretty quick....you tell them which purchase was last before the card or number was compromised or whatever, and then they roll all of that back. I think the entire process, when it happened to me, took maybe a week. Perhaps it too depends on your bank and so on, and certainly in my case it was very easy to tell from any standpoint what was far outside of my spending habits and radius. So, it's not really that they the bank have your money, but there's some lag in getting reimbursed for being a victim. If it were a credit card it would be very similar, because everyone has some spending limit on the card, so you are effectively losing that margin that you COULD be spending...
Sort of....most banks hold you liable for a certain amount of the fraudulent charge if your debit card is stolen, but not if you report it first and quickly, and even if they catch it and you don't, you're only liable for that amount...so if you lost $2000, losing 50 to the bank to get the rest back is a better deal.
That's not entirely accurate. That salary range is somewhat accurate for bioscience and some physical science baccalaureates. Postdocs make a notable amount more. More depends on your actual field, your specialties, and your region.
Exposure and familiarity are what aid accessibility, which in my mind is one of the issues for the average home computer user in choosing what platform to practice. Who is the target for Linux? If it's really everyone, then it might be that some of the naming schema need to change and take that into account. If it's going to continue to be for the more trained, inquisitive and overall learned user, then it's not nearly so much of a problem, but when I think about why more people use other platforms, that is one of the salient points...far from THE only or THE major issue, but certainly one. Are we helping bring Linux type platforms to more users across the knowledge spectrum or are we unthinkingly hindering them?