Yes, medical professionals need to be board certified. But don't confuse that with doctors.
No, they don't. Board certification is an additional step that physicians can take, and many better ones do, but it is not required to practice medicine.
I'll trust Jimmy's politics over my own common sense.
Common sense is neither common nor sense.
Personally, I'll take substantiated, fact-checked information over my own "common sense", which is really nothing more than the aggregate of my own biases.
WikiTribune might actually be able to write stories that evolve towards correctness through review, source-checking and debate, as Wikipedia does. I'm not sure that will actually help the "news" situation, though, because it takes too long, and by the time the facts have been found and clarified, everyone has moved on.
I would suggest that just as much responsibility should be on the consumer to try and verify that the device they purchase is actually secure as should be on the provider of those devices. If consumers are too lazy or indifferent to bother, they should be treated exactly the same as small children who haven't yet learned that they need to look both ways before crossing a street.
If a person runs a red light and kills somebody, you don't go after the automobile manufacturer... you go after the guy who broke the law.
But if you leave your keys in your car, you can be charged with a crime
Actually, no... If you leave your keys in your car, you simply cannot make a recognized insurance claim if it is stolen. It may certainly be illegal to leave the keys in a car that you do *not* own without consent of the owner, however, but it is not illegal to leave your keys in your own car. Waxing hypothetical, here, it would only be illegal to leave your keys in your own car if it were somehow an actual legal requirement for you to possess and have access to a car at all times.
Well, the internet was a much better place when breaking into insufficiently secured computers did not have legal consequences.
What, you mean like the early 1970's? Because laws outlawing hacking, or "phreaking" as it was called in the day are about that old.
Google hasn't been a functional search engine in about a decade.
Perhaps by your very narrow definition. But it's vastly better than it was at finding what people are looking for, which is what they always wanted, regardless of terminology.
However, it's *not* as good at "keyword regexp bingo" as it used to be. But if you're still trying to use those old-style queries, you're doing it wrong. Try typing complete natural language questions for what you want to find. I find this works amazingly well, even on obscure technical topics which include lots of "keywords" which are heavily overloaded in other contexts.
Well, eventually they will figure it out how to make self driving cars safer than more than 99% of human drivers. When that happens, I'm not sure, but it will happen. Now, if you introduce them too early, a very risky and unsafe version of self driving cars that is maybe safer than 20% of the human driver population, but less safe than 80%, then anybody of those 80% using a self driving car would mean a safety risk.
Except that's not really how it happens, you don't need to be a race car driver to be a good street driver. A good street driver is merely consistent, appropriate speed, paying attention, obeying the traffic rules. It's not a skill level, it's a fail rate. You do things right for a year or five years or twenty years and then for some reason you fuck up. As in failed to yield, ran a red light, didn't see the pedestrian, fell asleep at the wheel, didn't check their blind spot, lost control of the car fail. I can guarantee you that all the SDC test vehicles are better than 100% of humans at not rear-ending anyone.
If it's not coming officially it's coming unofficially with all sorts of assistants where technically you drive yourself. And people will ignore it, but we'll dismiss them as Darwin awards.
The underlying problem is Google is supposed to be a *search engine* It's supposed to show you where to find stuff on the internet. At some point in time they decided to complete with Ask Jeeves and become an "answer engine." Good luck with that.
It has always been an answer engine, and that's the reason it became popular.
Back in the day (mid 90s) most everyone was certain that search engines could never be very useful. Lycos, Altavista, etc. weren't terrible, but they also weren't very good, because although they could effectively spider the whole web that just meant that any search matched thousands or millions of pages, and they had no way to determine which of those were the best answers for the query. The "smart money" was betting on Yahoo!'s approach of manually curating enormous lists of links.
Then Larry Page's pagerank algorithm found an excellent (not perfect, but excellent) way to figure out which of all of those answers were likely to be the best ones. That insight launched Google. It took off precisely because it provided better answers, rather than just returning a list of everything that was on the Internet. A list of everything on the Internet is not useful.
The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders
Reports say that Meyer ordered underlings to not buy the resources to prevent and then not report the security breaches at Yahoo! That cost shareholders more than $1B in valuation on the Verizon deal.
Yep, had she done better there, perhaps Yahoo would be worth $48B instead of $47B. Considering it was worth $19B when she started, shareholders might be inclined to give her that one.
Would you accept a store charging you more for food because their magical sensor at the door (or in your fridge) has detected that your starving, or because they deduced from your clothes that you're more likely to pay more?
Not too many years ago, those were, in fact, standard practices by nearly all merchants. It's only been for the last century or two that stores have gotten in the habit of having fixed, marked prices. Before, prices were negotiated and you can bet that the merchant took into account everything he could see about the customer when deciding what price he could get.
The modern version is a little different, of course, because the online retailer *appears* to have a fixed, marked price, and there isn't an opportunity for interactive negotiation. But it's also different because the customer can easily shop a dozen other stores almost effortlessly. The customer can also do something like "wishlist" an item, which is a signal to the seller that the customer is interested in buying, but not willing to pay the posted price right now... which means there's a good chance that a slightly lower price will generate a sale.
So, I think buyers who are willing to be a little careful can effectively negotiate, and arguably hold the stronger position against online retailers. Buyers who are willing to take the first price offered, on the other hand, will pay in dollars for the time they save.
The implication of this article is that Mayer made out like a bandit while doing a bad job. But the numbers say that she didn't do a bad job. That surprised me, because my perception was the opposite, but the last time this came up, I did the numbers, here.
Under Mayer's tenure, Yahoo! generated a 21% annual growth rate in market value, beating Apple, Microsoft, IBM and Oracle, as well as the NASDAQ, S&P 500 and Dow Jones. I should point out that those companies also pay dividends, but they're all in the 1-2% range, so the dividend payouts don't change the results.
Now, you can argue that some other CEO would have done better, or that the main reason for Yahoo!'s success under her tenure was the decision to invest in Alibaba, made by her predecessor, but speculation about what someone else might have done is unproductive, and she decided to stay with that investment. The bottom line is that CEOs are supposed to generate value for shareholders, and market-beating value was generated, from a company that was clearly moribund before she was hired.
You can also argue about whether any CEO is worth the millions they get, but if you judge against other CEOs she earned her money.
They have largely self immunized already.
Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming