Which the industry hates because most people would never know to opt-in, or really opt-out. Meaning that if it's opt out that's the status quo for most people.
Indeed, it really depends on how it's being done. It's one thing to restrict such monitoring to the time that you're on their site, and possibly where you go via links and how you get there, but going any further than that is dubious at best. As far as I'm concerned it's fair game for them to mine their own site, provided of course that there's adequate warning and an option to opt out, presumably leaving the site.
I believe they call that a "phone book" and it contains many "recipes" for things like pizza, Thai and Indian foods. And in some markets other foods such as Vietnamese and Chinese.
There's nothing wrong with those books, but they really don't go into the why of cooking or explain how to know what a pinch, dash or to taste really means. Nor do they talk much about things like the Maillard reaction or sous vide cooking and why they're important to understand. Cooking for Geeks is really a book about how to take recipes and adjust them and really create your own recipe. A while back I made a curry based loosely upon what Cooking for Geeks talks about. I took the ingredients I had and through them together on the "if it grows together it goes together" basis. Which admittedly isn't unique to that book, I just didn't know about that previously.
Cooking for Geeks really gets down and into the science of cooking and really explains why certain things are done and alternatives.
It's a good book, and Cooking for Geeks features and interview with him. The main problem with "On Food and Cooking" from what I gather is that it's a lot of knowledge which a beginner is likely to be overwhelmed by. Cooking for Geeks is more of a beginners book explaining them basic processes and getting the reader introduced to the whys of cooking.
That works well, until some jerk finds an exploit in Windows' TCP/IP stack and you get infected by a worm. Or a new attack vector comes out such as the ones that relatively recently allowed for images and PDFs to be infected. Running windows without antivirus and antimalware is irresponsible no matter how careful you are, it's not meant to preclude or replace and individuals responsibility, but it works well as a back up.
If you get technical about it, his ownership of Fox was completely illegal when he bought it. It wasn't until he started buying Republican politicians that he got proper permission to own media in the US. They've since gone even further and allowed him to own more than one outlet per market.
You'd just be encouraging them. The problem isn't that we're not trading with them. The problem is that somebody is providing Kim Jong Il with the luxury goods he desires. Buying these games is just a matter of profiteering plain and simple, the money is not going to get back to the people nor is this going to decrease the isolation of the North Korean people. It's just another way in which Rupert Murdoch profits on the suffering of others.
Eh, to be honest, the research strikes me as being somewhat sketchy. Of course people are more likely to invest time in optimizing a program that's been useful previously. Why on Earth would you waste any time doing that if the application isn't useful. It's not about thinking of it as a person, it's the fact that if the program isn't helpful you've probably got better things to do, like finding an application which does what you need it to do.
I doubt that there's anything to the suit, between Hurd and Oracle I'm sure at least one party had a pack of lawyers look through the papers to make sure that there wasn't legitimate grounds for a suit of this nature. I'm sure they would've found a clause preventing him from working for Oracle.
There's a few ways it could shake out, they could get a check, more likely they'd get access to some of Oracle's IP in exchange for Oracle getting to use some of HP's. It's rather implausible that Hurd will be able to work for Oracle without some degree of compensation or arrangements being made to fire wall his knowledge from the rest of the company for some period of time.
Unfortunately, that's usually the case, great CEO poor employer or great employer poor CEO, I blame it on all the market interference to prop up poorly run companies. It's been going on for a really long time, and at this point we may need to institute regulations barring corporate take overs of bankrupt businesses. Allow them to buy portions of bankrupt companies, just not the whole thing.
That would be unseemly to say the least. You file suit in the defendants home jurisdiction. I realize that corporations love to venue shop, but you're supposed to file suit in the venue most convenient to the defendant in the case. I'm not sure how that came to be, but I suspect it had to do with not wanting to force somebody to settle because they couldn't afford to travel to court.
Probably because it's true. Once you're no longer working for the company you are no longer under any obligation to keep anything secret, unless you've agreed not to, either in writing or as a part of a verbal agreement. I used to work for a company that required all kinds of silence about just about everything. The moment I quit though, I stopped being silent about any of it. At that point there wasn't a damned thing they could do about it as I hadn't agreed to remain silent after separating from the company, and they knew I had the goods to prove everything I was saying. And more really, because I had documentation on other things that they'd been doing which I haven't leaked.
Serves them right. They choose to blow most of their disposable income in that way, they are not obligated to do so. As opposed to us nearer the bottom who don't have those options available to blow our money on. Progressive taxes are basically ones which tax based upon the amount of benefit that an individual gets from the system remaining in place. People don't make $250k a year based purely upon being really, really productive. They just don't. The CEO of the company is not a thousand or more times efficient than the people at the bottom, and suggesting that is mind blowing.
The people who actually produce the goods and services which drive the economy have been making less and less with increased work even as those at the to get more and more. What's worse is that they're the ones that by and large drove the economy off the cliff and insist that it was those damned poor folks demanding a fair slice of the pie that are to blame.
The problem is that while the President has a majority in Congress on paper, reality is much different. It would be a lot more obvious that he hasn't got a majority were we under a Parliamentary system. A lot of the Democrats under their system, and Republicans for that matter, would be in a completely different party. Beyond that Americans are cowards. Yes, I said it, and nobody more so than the brainless mush that listens to the likes of Fox commentary, Limbaugh and such. The Republicans have a really easy strategy, all they have to do is scare people enough that the Democrats can't get anything done, then sit back and watch the votes roll in. Since they weren't in the majority they aren't held accountable for anything. The only thing that could realistically screw it up for them is if the Tea party steals too many votes or the American people collectively grow a spine.
Beyond that, people tend to not realize how unstressful life threatening incidents can be. If you're properly trained and not under the illusion that you live forever, it's not universally stressful as people seem to assume. I've personally had more than my fair share of near death scrapes just as a civilian. What is stressful though is when you go through long periods of boredom knowing that at any moment something might happen. The incidents themselves according to pretty much everybody I've ever talked to seem to mirror my experience in that they're not where the stress comes from. But, it really depends on the person and YMMV.
It's easy to say that until some moron paying more attention to his iPod steps out in front of you at the last minute. Whether you're ultimately held responsible for it or not, and whether or not there's a fatality, the reality is that it's a life altering event to run over a pedestrian. And really, this ought to be common sense. You shouldn't be using devices while walking about if you're not capable of paying attention to what's going on around you.
Wow, you really need to go to school or at least read up on the subject. Government antitrust laws are the only reason why we have any free market left. Adam Smith himself was very clear that antitrust regulation was necessary for a free market to exist. In a free market without such regulation you ultimately end up with a single source monopoly over absolutely every item you can buy or sell. It takes a while, but it does eventually happen as it's not in any suppliers interest to have to compete with anybody else. It's usually more profitable to sell out for a hefty fee and a percentage than to see the profits going down the drain as buyers get to haggle.
It doesn't matter whether or not they're the best, if they have the market share they are prohibited by law from using it to harm the competition. End of story. Additionally, they got to be that large in part by being allowed to violate Clayton and take on the ad space that belonged to Double click, that was a very clear violation of antitrust regulation. You don't just get to be the biggest or the best search engine without spending a lot of money on it, the search engine is paid for via ad revenue.
We'll have to see what evidence turns up and what the court says, but if they really are bumping things in a way which isn't neutral then they are indeed violating the law and may end up being split or facing other sanctions.
Nope, they could for instance be in trouble for buying Double click, that was definitely a violation of antitrust law which the DoJ should never have allowed in the first place. Also if it turns out that there really is special priority given to their apps, that would also be a violation of Sherman. Not to mention that for the longest time there was some degree of ambiguity between when their apps were popping up alongside search results as a recommendation from Google rather than from their algorithm.
That's probably just an indication of how pointless Psychology has been up to this point. It's getting better, but that whole how does that make you feel bullshit is still far too common. Granted it's not easy to do proper controlled experiments, but at least doing some experimenting was a leap forward.
Slashdot Mirror
Which the industry hates because most people would never know to opt-in, or really opt-out. Meaning that if it's opt out that's the status quo for most people.
Indeed, it really depends on how it's being done. It's one thing to restrict such monitoring to the time that you're on their site, and possibly where you go via links and how you get there, but going any further than that is dubious at best. As far as I'm concerned it's fair game for them to mine their own site, provided of course that there's adequate warning and an option to opt out, presumably leaving the site.
Wait a minute, sometimes snow is wet and water is cold. Or didn't they cover that in the previous study? Quick to the grant writer's office.
Yeah, I call bullshit on that. Twitter is the site of narcissists.
I believe they call that a "phone book" and it contains many "recipes" for things like pizza, Thai and Indian foods. And in some markets other foods such as Vietnamese and Chinese.
There's nothing wrong with those books, but they really don't go into the why of cooking or explain how to know what a pinch, dash or to taste really means. Nor do they talk much about things like the Maillard reaction or sous vide cooking and why they're important to understand. Cooking for Geeks is really a book about how to take recipes and adjust them and really create your own recipe. A while back I made a curry based loosely upon what Cooking for Geeks talks about. I took the ingredients I had and through them together on the "if it grows together it goes together" basis. Which admittedly isn't unique to that book, I just didn't know about that previously.
Cooking for Geeks really gets down and into the science of cooking and really explains why certain things are done and alternatives.
It's a good book, and Cooking for Geeks features and interview with him. The main problem with "On Food and Cooking" from what I gather is that it's a lot of knowledge which a beginner is likely to be overwhelmed by. Cooking for Geeks is more of a beginners book explaining them basic processes and getting the reader introduced to the whys of cooking.
That works well, until some jerk finds an exploit in Windows' TCP/IP stack and you get infected by a worm. Or a new attack vector comes out such as the ones that relatively recently allowed for images and PDFs to be infected. Running windows without antivirus and antimalware is irresponsible no matter how careful you are, it's not meant to preclude or replace and individuals responsibility, but it works well as a back up.
If you get technical about it, his ownership of Fox was completely illegal when he bought it. It wasn't until he started buying Republican politicians that he got proper permission to own media in the US. They've since gone even further and allowed him to own more than one outlet per market.
You'd just be encouraging them. The problem isn't that we're not trading with them. The problem is that somebody is providing Kim Jong Il with the luxury goods he desires. Buying these games is just a matter of profiteering plain and simple, the money is not going to get back to the people nor is this going to decrease the isolation of the North Korean people. It's just another way in which Rupert Murdoch profits on the suffering of others.
Eh, to be honest, the research strikes me as being somewhat sketchy. Of course people are more likely to invest time in optimizing a program that's been useful previously. Why on Earth would you waste any time doing that if the application isn't useful. It's not about thinking of it as a person, it's the fact that if the program isn't helpful you've probably got better things to do, like finding an application which does what you need it to do.
I doubt that there's anything to the suit, between Hurd and Oracle I'm sure at least one party had a pack of lawyers look through the papers to make sure that there wasn't legitimate grounds for a suit of this nature. I'm sure they would've found a clause preventing him from working for Oracle.
There's a few ways it could shake out, they could get a check, more likely they'd get access to some of Oracle's IP in exchange for Oracle getting to use some of HP's. It's rather implausible that Hurd will be able to work for Oracle without some degree of compensation or arrangements being made to fire wall his knowledge from the rest of the company for some period of time.
Unfortunately, that's usually the case, great CEO poor employer or great employer poor CEO, I blame it on all the market interference to prop up poorly run companies. It's been going on for a really long time, and at this point we may need to institute regulations barring corporate take overs of bankrupt businesses. Allow them to buy portions of bankrupt companies, just not the whole thing.
That would be unseemly to say the least. You file suit in the defendants home jurisdiction. I realize that corporations love to venue shop, but you're supposed to file suit in the venue most convenient to the defendant in the case. I'm not sure how that came to be, but I suspect it had to do with not wanting to force somebody to settle because they couldn't afford to travel to court.
"confidentiality means nothing"
I'm curious why you believe this.
Probably because it's true. Once you're no longer working for the company you are no longer under any obligation to keep anything secret, unless you've agreed not to, either in writing or as a part of a verbal agreement. I used to work for a company that required all kinds of silence about just about everything. The moment I quit though, I stopped being silent about any of it. At that point there wasn't a damned thing they could do about it as I hadn't agreed to remain silent after separating from the company, and they knew I had the goods to prove everything I was saying. And more really, because I had documentation on other things that they'd been doing which I haven't leaked.
Serves them right. They choose to blow most of their disposable income in that way, they are not obligated to do so. As opposed to us nearer the bottom who don't have those options available to blow our money on. Progressive taxes are basically ones which tax based upon the amount of benefit that an individual gets from the system remaining in place. People don't make $250k a year based purely upon being really, really productive. They just don't. The CEO of the company is not a thousand or more times efficient than the people at the bottom, and suggesting that is mind blowing.
The people who actually produce the goods and services which drive the economy have been making less and less with increased work even as those at the to get more and more. What's worse is that they're the ones that by and large drove the economy off the cliff and insist that it was those damned poor folks demanding a fair slice of the pie that are to blame.
The problem is that while the President has a majority in Congress on paper, reality is much different. It would be a lot more obvious that he hasn't got a majority were we under a Parliamentary system. A lot of the Democrats under their system, and Republicans for that matter, would be in a completely different party. Beyond that Americans are cowards. Yes, I said it, and nobody more so than the brainless mush that listens to the likes of Fox commentary, Limbaugh and such. The Republicans have a really easy strategy, all they have to do is scare people enough that the Democrats can't get anything done, then sit back and watch the votes roll in. Since they weren't in the majority they aren't held accountable for anything. The only thing that could realistically screw it up for them is if the Tea party steals too many votes or the American people collectively grow a spine.
Beyond that, people tend to not realize how unstressful life threatening incidents can be. If you're properly trained and not under the illusion that you live forever, it's not universally stressful as people seem to assume. I've personally had more than my fair share of near death scrapes just as a civilian. What is stressful though is when you go through long periods of boredom knowing that at any moment something might happen. The incidents themselves according to pretty much everybody I've ever talked to seem to mirror my experience in that they're not where the stress comes from. But, it really depends on the person and YMMV.
It's easy to say that until some moron paying more attention to his iPod steps out in front of you at the last minute. Whether you're ultimately held responsible for it or not, and whether or not there's a fatality, the reality is that it's a life altering event to run over a pedestrian. And really, this ought to be common sense. You shouldn't be using devices while walking about if you're not capable of paying attention to what's going on around you.
Wow, you really need to go to school or at least read up on the subject. Government antitrust laws are the only reason why we have any free market left. Adam Smith himself was very clear that antitrust regulation was necessary for a free market to exist. In a free market without such regulation you ultimately end up with a single source monopoly over absolutely every item you can buy or sell. It takes a while, but it does eventually happen as it's not in any suppliers interest to have to compete with anybody else. It's usually more profitable to sell out for a hefty fee and a percentage than to see the profits going down the drain as buyers get to haggle.
It doesn't matter whether or not they're the best, if they have the market share they are prohibited by law from using it to harm the competition. End of story. Additionally, they got to be that large in part by being allowed to violate Clayton and take on the ad space that belonged to Double click, that was a very clear violation of antitrust regulation. You don't just get to be the biggest or the best search engine without spending a lot of money on it, the search engine is paid for via ad revenue.
We'll have to see what evidence turns up and what the court says, but if they really are bumping things in a way which isn't neutral then they are indeed violating the law and may end up being split or facing other sanctions.
No really, he hasn't misrepresented it. Standard Oil at one point refined 90% of the oil in the US giving it immense power in that field.
Nope, they could for instance be in trouble for buying Double click, that was definitely a violation of antitrust law which the DoJ should never have allowed in the first place. Also if it turns out that there really is special priority given to their apps, that would also be a violation of Sherman. Not to mention that for the longest time there was some degree of ambiguity between when their apps were popping up alongside search results as a recommendation from Google rather than from their algorithm.
That's probably just an indication of how pointless Psychology has been up to this point. It's getting better, but that whole how does that make you feel bullshit is still far too common. Granted it's not easy to do proper controlled experiments, but at least doing some experimenting was a leap forward.