There is no working prototype. This is a theoretical break through. They haven't proven anything yet.
How long until the phone companies start killing phones for late payment or cancellation of service? This does not bode well for freedom to choose your carrier or for unlocking phones.
The easy solution is to not do business with them. I had to call every month for a year due to overcharging for television service I didn't have and "multiple computers" back when they tried that nonsense. I eventually told them I'd had enough and they wouldn't get another penny from me and to cancel my service. I never once saw any kind of credit issue from it though they did try for the next year to get me to reinstate my service.
I haven't used any of their services for over 10 years now and haven't missed it a bit.
You want to change their policies? Speak with your wallet!
I don't believe you need a warrant to follow people. These are tracking devices, not tapping devices. There's a huge difference, legally. These are the equivalent of the cops following you everywhere you go, not listening to what you're saying, but just seeing where you're going and who you're associating with when you go out. Now they can just do it electronically.
Whether or not it's acceptable that the police have either capability is another matter altogether.
This is what causes bridges (and everything else) to fail. Resonating at the harmonic frequency of anything will eventually cause it to fail.
Whether or not the help is installed locally or just refers to an online help is usually an install option, in my experience. I haven't installed libreoffice in a long time because I don't like it, personally, but I think it's probably still an option. Maybe not.
If you don't factor in re-training costs, it's never a fair comparison. Training, however, doesn't take millions or even hundreds of thousands, of dollars and once your workforce is trained, new employees can always ask existing employees how to do something. There's a minor productivity hit until people are suitably comfortable/trained but that happens every time a new version of any existing software (MS or other) comes out anyway. It's the cost of doing business.
I think in the long-term, I think open source still wins but you have to roll it out properly and not just expect people to figure it out for themselves. That said, I've seen MS be very supportive and also seen the exact opposite from them. It all depends upon who you have on the other end of your issue and sometimes how much money it means to them.
So people don't ever have to report bugs to Microsoft? I think you and I live in different worlds because we report them routinely, to all of our vendors, whether we paid for the software or it was free.
Then you are going to keep getting overlooked. Save the "lessons learned" for the interview. Keep the resume relevant (current) and one to two pages with only your most recent experiences. When you get the interview, that's when you dazzle them with all the other stuff you actually bring to the table.
Someone please mod this up. It's not just agism that's keeping people out of the job market.
You haven't been reading the posts carefully then. There IS a law explicitly forbidding "entertainment" and non-informational displays (information for driving, not other crap) being displayed in front of the rear of the driver's seat. The law also explicitly lists exceptions, to include GPS and video (such as rear view cameras) that enhance the driver's ability to operate safely. Google glass may fall into that category but it very clearly also falls outside of that category.
I can't read the linked article but I'm going to assume that the driver in question wasn't stopped because she was wearing stupid looking glasses. She was probably stopped because she was driving badly and then the police realized (or she told them) she was wearing google glass and cited her appropriately. Really, nothing to see here. Unless she can somehow prove that she was using the glass display as a legitimate HUD for operating the vehicle, she was breaking the intent (if not the letter-which is arguable as well) of the law. Plain and simple.
And that, my friends, is complete and utter bullshit legal-speak. Sure, it follows the letter of the law, but not the spirit of it. Way to go...
That kind of attitude is why our legal system wastes millions of dollars every year.
Exactly. People who use video to talk regularly (like me) simply don't care. Like I said, a gimmick.
See my reply to the previous comment. If fishing just for food and nothing more, it would be very very difficult for anything but a massive population to overfish... a population that wouldn't be able to survive on the amount of water available, for example. Could you over fish a small pond? Sure. Maybe even a small lake if you had thousands of people fishing it every day, but there is no evidence anywhere I'm aware that any population of people has ever devastated a fish population just by fishing for their own food. I'll be happy to accept actual research that proves me wrong...
Please show me any documentation that a population of people hunting/fishing for their own food and nothing more has destroyed an animal population. Theoretically it is possible for species that have a long gestation period and low offspring count but evidence that it happens just isn't available. In instances I know of there were several other factors involved, such as disease or introduction of other species (not just humans) that drove animals away or to extinction.