3. LdS believe in the Godhead instead of the Trinity.
The other two points are free of specific terminology. You may want to expand about the difference here, as most readers will not know what you mean, and Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this.
What happens when an high-level executive with an iPhone is brought in by your organization?
You say "Unsupported!", she says, "My last company supported it just fine. Oh, and we used MS Exchange there, too. Oh, and it was a regulated HIPPAA environment, and it passed audits."
Unsupported != impossible.
I would explain that the cost of making it work with her iPhone is X... either in dollars or opportunity cost. And the cost of using the IT budget to buy her a blackberry is Y. If she allocates (X-Y) to the IT budget, I'll be happy to (assign someone to) do it.
Seriously, you can use FreeBSD on a custom-built-hardware phone to interface with MS Exchange too. But just because one company will support it, doesn't mean others will.
Yet another nail in the heart of the US Constitution, and another denial of fundamental rights.
However, if the court issues a subpoena and/or a warrant for the papers, the court is entitled to access them, even if they're on an encrypted device. I'm not sure a simple judicial order from the bench qualifies, but certainly if the judge SIGNS an order he's in the right.
RTFA, the encrypted drive was picked up in the execution of a duly sworn warrant. They just cannot decrypt it.
There's nothing wrong with supporting people when you think they deserve it, or when you think they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
Yeah, but that wasn't the case I was describing. I was describing a systemic effort to mitigate punishment because you don't believe in the rule. Which will, surprise, mitigate incentives for cops not to beat the shit out of suspects.
It's a fairly effective technique to undermine a law. Apparently the Mafia used to take care of the families of arrested members, and the failure to continue doing so led to more people turning state's witness.
But the predictable (and non-criminal) aid that will go to a punished officer means that that kind of punishment for a crime that fellow police officers think is not a crime will be an effective deterrent.
just because he was illegally tracked doesn't mean he wasn't still guilty. The police should be disciplined, the criminal shouldn't be let off the hook
Cops under your system: That dirty SOB, I know he's guilty of (horrific crime.) It'll be worth going on unpaid suspension for a month just to beat a confession out of him.
Esp. since there will probably be some charitable giving to the cop during his discipline from other members of the force.
The profession of inventing numbers has always intrigued me. The article says, "The hiatus cost Microsoft $100 million." Well, sure they can figure out how much money they usually make in a time frame, and how much money they didn't make during this time frame, and BAM you've got a number.
Well, back of the envelope, 8,500 employees, times 100/hr times three weeks ( 120 hours) and you have 102 million. Labor costs alone could easily account for it.
So, if the average engineer spent three weeks searching, and the average engineer costs MS 100/hr in 2002, we hit that number easily. And probably more senior (and expensive) engineers worked longer than new engineers. And, given the extra annotations they added to those millions of lines to allow for automated vulnerability detection, I can see it taking that long... let alone writing the tools that used it.
But that number, $100,000,000, just seems a bit too... round.
It's almost as though someone used rounding to make the number easier to talk about. Because it matters if it was 100M or 101,341,621 right?
Or would you get upset if I said that the sun is 100M miles away? Or 500 light-seconds?
I mean, both are wrong, but both are also right to the sig-figs I indicated.
So in a future China where 1.3 billion want internet access, we will see how effective the government is at censoring them and keeping them cowed.
Censoring people on the Internet is quite easy. You can simply whitelist five pages (Ilovethepremier.com, ChinaRocks.com, etc.)
But beyond that, technical measures will only take you so far. There's no "reasonable doubt", after all. Chinese official, "We blocked a Tor connection from 123 fake street, go arrest and execute everyone there."
Anyone who can clearly explain a topic in English probably won't write readable code either.
Is this a clever dig at native English speaking programmers?
Huh? Since the sentence clearly is broken (can/won't/either), I assume the GP originally wrote can't, had the spell checker yell at him (as he should use cannot) and corrected poorly. That is, if you cannot write understandably in English, you cannot write understandable code. And that actually gave me a good indication of both of your skills. He's a bit careless, and you assume a bit too much.
I can't imagine a kind of programming where "which 7 variables do you need to track in your mind" is of any relevance
I interperted this as a generic type of problem a programmer has to solve. You've never had a debugging problem where paring down you attention to a few variables, and tracking the changes to them, was important?
I would have walked out on such an interview. Or submit an invoice. I don't work for free.
And I would watch you go.
I don't abuse interviewees, but if you cannot solve a problem, I don't need you. And solving a problem can take 15 minutes.
Bottom line, interviewing people to trick them into writing code 15 minutes at time sounds horrendously inefficent. 2/3+ will be worthless. The formatting and stitching alone will probably take more time than writing it from scratch. And those are only the pragmatic reasons, completely ignoring the legal, moral, ethical and other reasons.
Gore wanted a partial recount, and the court should have rejected that -- and they did.
Florida law allows for a candidate to ask for a partial recount. In fact, you must request a manual recount at the county level. If Bush wanted a full recount, he should have asked the other counties to do so as well.
People like to claim that the tea party is a group of terrorists, but you know they sure the hell didn't have arsonists, rapists, or murderers running through their groups now did they?
They probably did. I mean, just getting that many people together you'll probably get at least 2 of each.
And if you're talking about the Boston Tea Party, well, that was deliberate destruction of private property because they didn't like what that company was doing.
Right. And with false advertising, they're punishing you because they didn't like the contents of your speech.
No, with false advertising they are punishing you for violating an oral contract. Don't you think contracts ought be enforcable?
n. Until you pull out a gun and point it at someone or actually commit the crime, I see no problem.
What makes it a crime? I'm allowed to carry a gun. Or a knife. If I'm not aiming the gun at you I'm not comitting a crime? And why is it a crime to point my gun at everyone I see in case they try to kill me?
It's not ignoring it. Because (apparently almost) everyone understands that "free speech" refers to the ability to not have censorship apply to the content of speech. That speech can be the signal of criminal activities seems retardly obvious. I mean, define a mugging if anything I can say or write does not constitute mugging. Walking around with a gun is legal. Accepting gifts is legal. According to you saying "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" is legal.
Bottom line, no one is ignoring some secret real meaning, because there's multiple uses of the word speech. You are using dictionary definition 2: the act of speaking. Most people recognize that freedom of speech depends on dictionary definition 1: ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures.
The problem I have is that the constitution states no such limitations. It doesn't seem to draw any lines (unless the text is invisible). As I said, if they don't like that, then they should amend the constitution. If the issue is really so pressing,
Ummm... you think that freedom of speech applies to freedom from restrictions on false advertising, fraud, slander, espionage, perjury, plotting to commit a crime, etc?
I mean there's also copyright infringement, although that is specified in the Constitution.
The problem with stealing a wallet is that it might turn out to be empty (and if you flash your wallet around so others can see it's contents, you're an idiot).
It's an attempt to draw a line between pure speech that must be protected (e.g. every president is a jackass), and acts that involve but are not limited to speech (I state on this signed sheet of paper that I promise to pay you money). (If the wirtten/verbal dichotomy annoys you, a verbal contract is binding, just quite hard to prove.)
All "restricted speech" is supposed to be that which crosses the line.
Obscenity is a weird condition, but it's defined by the lack of like 20 elements in addition to being "shocking", so if you have any political statement, e.g., it's not obscene.
"Every time there is a pledge week you tell us government funding is only a fraction of your revenue and you desperately need our donations. Why is it when you are about to lose government support you claim it will drive you into the ground? Which claim is true and which one is at best an exaggeration and at worst an outright fabrication?"
I don't know how that statement passes muster. The average two-income household is pretty reliant on both of those incomes, and losing either would be pretty devastating. Let's say government income accounted for 20-40% (which seems to be about how much comes from direct and indirect grants), that's a major chunk of a budget.
Those are some wild assumptions you are making. It seems to me more like id is acting (rationally) in their own self interest, because releasing patented code could get THEM (id) in trouble
It's not an assumption. ID licensed the patent from Creative.
It's also not at all clear that they are allowed to release the patented code without permission from the patent holder, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
They have permission to release the patented code. They already have in binary form (see: Doom3). Therefore they can release it in source form. Patent law doesn't work like you seem to think. It's not like the algorithm is secret, it's registered with the government.You might be thinking of trade secret?
Once the code drops, the hastily written code to get around the patent is likely to get rewritten again anyhow. Why waste time on that?
Well, the patented technology seems less valuable now... there are faster ways to get better results on modern hardware. As for rewriting it... I consider myself a good programmer. I know a lot of very good programmers. I don't know who would rewrite anything Carmack had just written. Especially in graphics. Especially in optimization. And especially, especially at the intersection of the two. I don't paint over Di Vinci's either.
Slashdot Mirror
The other two points are free of specific terminology. You may want to expand about the difference here, as most readers will not know what you mean, and Wikipedia doesn't have a page on this.
You really have to define "better". And "capitalism".
Does Britain's NHS disqualify it as a "capitalist" country? Does America's SS? Banking regulations?
Is it better in a Rawlsian sense? Maximum aggregate utility? Or what?
Unsupported != impossible.
I would explain that the cost of making it work with her iPhone is X... either in dollars or opportunity cost. And the cost of using the IT budget to buy her a blackberry is Y. If she allocates (X-Y) to the IT budget, I'll be happy to (assign someone to) do it.
Seriously, you can use FreeBSD on a custom-built-hardware phone to interface with MS Exchange too. But just because one company will support it, doesn't mean others will.
RTFA, the encrypted drive was picked up in the execution of a duly sworn warrant. They just cannot decrypt it.
Yeah, but that wasn't the case I was describing. I was describing a systemic effort to mitigate punishment because you don't believe in the rule. Which will, surprise, mitigate incentives for cops not to beat the shit out of suspects.
It's a fairly effective technique to undermine a law. Apparently the Mafia used to take care of the families of arrested members, and the failure to continue doing so led to more people turning state's witness.
But the predictable (and non-criminal) aid that will go to a punished officer means that that kind of punishment for a crime that fellow police officers think is not a crime will be an effective deterrent.
The US invented the Internet. Maybe you shouldn't show up at an ongoing thing and complain it's not to your liking.
Go create a new internet, based around base-10 numbers, if you want.
Cops under your system: That dirty SOB, I know he's guilty of (horrific crime.) It'll be worth going on unpaid suspension for a month just to beat a confession out of him.
Esp. since there will probably be some charitable giving to the cop during his discipline from other members of the force.
Well, back of the envelope, 8,500 employees, times 100/hr times three weeks ( 120 hours) and you have 102 million. Labor costs alone could easily account for it.
So, if the average engineer spent three weeks searching, and the average engineer costs MS 100/hr in 2002, we hit that number easily. And probably more senior (and expensive) engineers worked longer than new engineers. And, given the extra annotations they added to those millions of lines to allow for automated vulnerability detection, I can see it taking that long... let alone writing the tools that used it.
It's almost as though someone used rounding to make the number easier to talk about. Because it matters if it was 100M or 101,341,621 right?
Or would you get upset if I said that the sun is 100M miles away? Or 500 light-seconds?
I mean, both are wrong, but both are also right to the sig-figs I indicated.
Accuracy != precision.
Except you got the situation incorrectly. He advised his replacement, his own brother, who still worked at the company, to do this.
Censoring people on the Internet is quite easy. You can simply whitelist five pages (Ilovethepremier.com, ChinaRocks.com, etc.)
But beyond that, technical measures will only take you so far. There's no "reasonable doubt", after all. Chinese official, "We blocked a Tor connection from 123 fake street, go arrest and execute everyone there."
Huh? Since the sentence clearly is broken (can/won't/either), I assume the GP originally wrote can't, had the spell checker yell at him (as he should use cannot) and corrected poorly. That is, if you cannot write understandably in English, you cannot write understandable code. And that actually gave me a good indication of both of your skills. He's a bit careless, and you assume a bit too much.
I interperted this as a generic type of problem a programmer has to solve. You've never had a debugging problem where paring down you attention to a few variables, and tracking the changes to them, was important?
And I would watch you go.
I don't abuse interviewees, but if you cannot solve a problem, I don't need you. And solving a problem can take 15 minutes.
Bottom line, interviewing people to trick them into writing code 15 minutes at time sounds horrendously inefficent. 2/3+ will be worthless. The formatting and stitching alone will probably take more time than writing it from scratch. And those are only the pragmatic reasons, completely ignoring the legal, moral, ethical and other reasons.
Florida law allows for a candidate to ask for a partial recount. In fact, you must request a manual recount at the county level. If Bush wanted a full recount, he should have asked the other counties to do so as well.
They probably did. I mean, just getting that many people together you'll probably get at least 2 of each.
And if you're talking about the Boston Tea Party, well, that was deliberate destruction of private property because they didn't like what that company was doing.
No, with false advertising they are punishing you for violating an oral contract. Don't you think contracts ought be enforcable?
What makes it a crime? I'm allowed to carry a gun. Or a knife. If I'm not aiming the gun at you I'm not comitting a crime? And why is it a crime to point my gun at everyone I see in case they try to kill me?
I'm pretty sure that the process of becoming in charge of that decision is designed to weed out people who think like you do.
It's not ignoring it. Because (apparently almost) everyone understands that "free speech" refers to the ability to not have censorship apply to the content of speech. That speech can be the signal of criminal activities seems retardly obvious. I mean, define a mugging if anything I can say or write does not constitute mugging. Walking around with a gun is legal. Accepting gifts is legal. According to you saying "Give me your wallet or I'll shoot you" is legal.
Bottom line, no one is ignoring some secret real meaning, because there's multiple uses of the word speech. You are using dictionary definition 2: the act of speaking. Most people recognize that freedom of speech depends on dictionary definition 1: ability to express one's thoughts and emotions by speech sounds and gestures.
Ummm... you think that freedom of speech applies to freedom from restrictions on false advertising, fraud, slander, espionage, perjury, plotting to commit a crime, etc?
I mean there's also copyright infringement, although that is specified in the Constitution.
But I'm curious what you think "speech" means?
But what if the wallet is empty?
What law did Jeffery Skillings break when running Enron?
Muskets are outrageous, but to think that the 2nd amendment protects FABs or nukes or germ warefare would also be outrageous.
It's an attempt to draw a line between pure speech that must be protected (e.g. every president is a jackass), and acts that involve but are not limited to speech (I state on this signed sheet of paper that I promise to pay you money). (If the wirtten/verbal dichotomy annoys you, a verbal contract is binding, just quite hard to prove.)
All "restricted speech" is supposed to be that which crosses the line.
Obscenity is a weird condition, but it's defined by the lack of like 20 elements in addition to being "shocking", so if you have any political statement, e.g., it's not obscene.
I don't know how that statement passes muster. The average two-income household is pretty reliant on both of those incomes, and losing either would be pretty devastating. Let's say government income accounted for 20-40% (which seems to be about how much comes from direct and indirect grants), that's a major chunk of a budget.
It's not an assumption. ID licensed the patent from Creative.
They have permission to release the patented code. They already have in binary form (see: Doom3). Therefore they can release it in source form. Patent law doesn't work like you seem to think. It's not like the algorithm is secret, it's registered with the government.You might be thinking of trade secret?
Well, the patented technology seems less valuable now... there are faster ways to get better results on modern hardware. As for rewriting it... I consider myself a good programmer. I know a lot of very good programmers. I don't know who would rewrite anything Carmack had just written. Especially in graphics. Especially in optimization. And especially, especially at the intersection of the two. I don't paint over Di Vinci's either.
Well, ID is allowed to release it with the code in there. They just don't want people using their code to get in trouble.