I agree, and that's essentially part of my point, but is this really the fault of the search engines, or is it the "no forgiveness" attitude of employers (and a whole host of others that are in a position to make major decisions that massively affect someone's life) that's the fundamental problem?
The problem is that for most job openings, an employer will have many equally-qualified candidates. Denying those with criminal records is an easy way of committing a first-pass culling to get a list of candidates for interviews.
Not if the company doesn't have to pay for a sysadmin anymore...
But they're paying a hell of a lot more in Cloud fees. Those add up quickly. And best of all, the cloud admins don't work for you and don't particularly care about whether one of the dozens of companys' servers they manage are having trouble.
Since no court would (or could) mandate such a requirement, and frankly no sane person should ever agree to such terms even if they were enforceable, this simply means no cloud provider even offers anything I need.
Are you purely self-employed? If not, expect your CTO (or any thinking CxO) to roll their eyes and leave you out of their negotiations.
Do you honestly think they're not ALREADY doing deep packet inspection? They already know how many and the type of devices on your home network. They're also aware of when you're using bittorrent and other 'interesting" services.
I'm going to call BS on this, or at least that they can identify NATted devices well enough for reliable billing.
Of course, having said that, I fully expect Comcast to go about implementing a theoretically sensible idea in the most discriminatory, expensive, heavy-handed, and frustrating way possible. What the hell is wrong with those guys?
They want to crush their competitors in the online streaming world, and Netflix and Hulu and Amazon compete with Comcast's offerings. There are ways to alleviate the bandwidth problem which Comcast has rejected, such as Netflix's caching servers. No, Comcast has taken efforts to maximize the Internet bandwidth that is required for streaming so they can use the brute-force club of price increases to give their offerings an unwarranted advantage in the marketplace.
That's not really true. One of the big issues that no one is talking about (which is the real promise of an open/unfettered Internet) is that data caps (as well as server port blocking) limit the ability of the individual content producer (reasonably priced video recording equipment exists at prices that an individual can afford) to make their content widely available. That is a threat to the content providers who control the broadband internet services.
This is worth highlighting and elaborating on. Comcast reps have said before that data/streaming (like comcast on-demand) that you pull from Comcast's network will not count towards the bandwidth cap. Now they might counter that the cap is intended to reduce the stresses on their peering links with the rest of the Internet, so internal stuff -shouldn't- count. That may even be true, but they have also denied Netflix's offers to place Netflix caching servers within Comcast's network to reduce the stresses that Netflix users cause by streaming. They refuse because they would rather have Netflix users pay more for bandwidth instead, and they would rather congest the links and be able to blame it on Netflix so they have a weapon against Net Neutrality.
An Internet provider should not be a content provider; there is an inherent conflict of interest. Forget Comcast's takeover of Cox, Comcast's actions against its competitors are the real problem here. The US needs an end to the local cable/telco monopolies/duopolies.
Whhhoooaaa, wait, I thought that was supposed to be the future of media. You know, DVD and Blu-Ray are dying, everyone is just going to stream everything all the time.
Since you know so much about this (clearly much more than someone you've never met and whose knowledge and experience you have no information about), please explain how you *know* that there are no vulnerabilities or malware on *any* smartphones that might compromise the data in one of many different e-wallet apps. Also, please explain how you *know* that there will *never* be such vulnerabilities or malware. I'm an empiricist. I have an open mind. Convince me. Better yet, show me where, when and by whom all e-wallet app code, APIs, and general security of smartphones have been evaluated and certified [wikipedia.org].
In principle, I agree with you, but I would probably agree with you a lot more if you were weighing a secure system against a semi-secure system. As we have seen, however, the CC system is -extremely- insecure, and it is very, very easy for your credit card info to find its ways into the wrong hand. Unscrupulous store employees who install skimmers on CC swipers, online retailers who store CC information in an insecure manner (and you'll never know if they do until they get hacked). Maybe you just used your credit card at Target last year. I just got a free year's worth of credit card monitoring because of all the hacks and exploited flaws last year.
BitCoin is Fiat Currency for sure, but it is not like current USD money, in as much as there is no "FED" that can change the value at the drop of a hat
Yeah, instead it just changes value randomly and far more wildly as speculators jump in and out and currency exchanges get hacked and looted.
I was on mile 4 of a long bike ride when my rear tire failed. Not the tube (I carry a spare), the actual tire. I had decided not to bring my wallet with me, but I did have my phone. Anyway, I needed a replacement tire, but I had no money on me, and I realized that despite having my credit card number memorized, I didn't actually have any direct way to pay a bicycle shop for a tire, so I walked home.
Oh! I was on a century ride just the other weekend too. I got to a rest stop to find... oh yes, no signal. At least in the US there are still large swaths of land where there is no mobile access. No wireless, no cell towers. Even some tiny towns (or settlements too small to be incorporated) will have no cell service. They do have land lines though.
Cash is still accepted everywhere, so in one of those small back pockets of my bike jersey I keep my driver's license (for ID purposes), a credit card, and two $20 bills. In the other pocket is my phone, which is orders of magnitude heavier and bulkier and less reliable (and the phone scanning for cell towers and failing really drains the battery).
But, to be honest, there's a plethora of one-click installs of any game you can mention, legit and dubious, out there - complete with emulation and fixes for modern OS.
At this point I think it may be easier to run an older version of Windows in VirtualBox. Trying to get Civilization 2 working on a modern Windows machine (complete with no-CD hack) was PAINFUL. And mostly fruitless.
Ok, so we all know how to rip our music CDs, hopefully to lossless format.
How about CD-based video games? Long ago I used Daemon Tools to create a virtual CD drive so I didn't have to break out the CDs to play a game; is that still a thing?
I still have King's Quest II and Ultima III on original 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disks. I'll bet those don't work anymore.
I've even heard it surmised (possibly here) that putting a computer program in memory for execution is technically a copyright violation. It will never be tried in court as it goes way beyond the idea of common sense (even in today's corporate controlled courts), but it could be true.
But it was tried in court (sortof) in the Federal case Mai v. Peak. The court ruled that according to the rules of copyright, technically loading a program into RAM for execution does violate copyright, partially because RAM can be easily copyable (Anything that places a program in storage that is trivially copyable is a copyright violation).
The US Congress, Orrin Hatch in particular, thought this was silly, and amended the copyright code. Section 117 of the Copyright code currently reads:
"(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
#2 is your backup copy provision, #1 means you can run a program without infringing it, as long as you're just running it (and not decompiling it or something else of that nature).
"Wait a minute, when did any stormtrooper actually hit anything they aimed at? Even at point blank range?" But look at those blast points... Too accurate for sand people!
Man, I want to see a comedy with those sand people now.
It's a bit easier to laugh with C3PO's stuck-up but competent antics rather than Jar-Jar's stupid, klutzy, and incompetent antics.
At least there's a reason for C3PO to be around, and he serves story purposes as a fine translator. Jar-Jar serves no purpose and the entire planet core sequence could have been scrapped and make no difference to the plot.
I liked Tron. I grew up with Tron. Tron really helped spark my interest in computers, which has served me very well to this day.
That said, the original Tron had some staggering flaws, and aside from its status as being 'ground-breaking,' it's not a very good movie. Tron Legacy is a fine sequel that outdoes the original in many ways (including character and world, I'd say) but falls short in others.
This post really did not deserve to be downmodded. It's not flamebait, and he's not trolling -- city life isn't for everyone. The original poster didn't insult people who prefer cities, he only stated he didn't understand the rationale behind it.
Unless you absolutely -worship- cities and find anyone who doesn't like the downsides morally repugnant, I'm not sure why you would mod this post down.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree, and that's essentially part of my point, but is this really the fault of the search engines, or is it the "no forgiveness" attitude of employers (and a whole host of others that are in a position to make major decisions that massively affect someone's life) that's the fundamental problem?
The problem is that for most job openings, an employer will have many equally-qualified candidates. Denying those with criminal records is an easy way of committing a first-pass culling to get a list of candidates for interviews.
And so now McDonalds is required to serve merely warm coffee, so by the time you arrive where you're driving to, it's lukewarm. Go progress.
Yes, I expect my coffee to be extremely hot. And I'm not so much of a dumbshit that I store it between my legs either.
But in the end you got a +5 comment on Slashdot, so it was all worth it, right?
Oh my God. Oh my God.
And I thought I had bad stories to tell.
Not if the company doesn't have to pay for a sysadmin anymore...
But they're paying a hell of a lot more in Cloud fees. Those add up quickly.
And best of all, the cloud admins don't work for you and don't particularly care about whether one of the dozens of companys' servers they manage are having trouble.
Since no court would (or could) mandate such a requirement, and frankly no sane person should ever agree to such terms even if they were enforceable, this simply means no cloud provider even offers anything I need.
Are you purely self-employed?
If not, expect your CTO (or any thinking CxO) to roll their eyes and leave you out of their negotiations.
Do you honestly think they're not ALREADY doing deep packet inspection? They already know how many and the type of devices on your home network. They're also aware of when you're using bittorrent and other 'interesting" services.
I'm going to call BS on this, or at least that they can identify NATted devices well enough for reliable billing.
Of course, having said that, I fully expect Comcast to go about implementing a theoretically sensible idea in the most discriminatory, expensive, heavy-handed, and frustrating way possible. What the hell is wrong with those guys?
They want to crush their competitors in the online streaming world, and Netflix and Hulu and Amazon compete with Comcast's offerings. There are ways to alleviate the bandwidth problem which Comcast has rejected, such as Netflix's caching servers. No, Comcast has taken efforts to maximize the Internet bandwidth that is required for streaming so they can use the brute-force club of price increases to give their offerings an unwarranted advantage in the marketplace.
That's not really true. One of the big issues that no one is talking about (which is the real promise of an open/unfettered Internet) is that data caps (as well as server port blocking) limit the ability of the individual content producer (reasonably priced video recording equipment exists at prices that an individual can afford) to make their content widely available. That is a threat to the content providers who control the broadband internet services.
This is worth highlighting and elaborating on. Comcast reps have said before that data/streaming (like comcast on-demand) that you pull from Comcast's network will not count towards the bandwidth cap. Now they might counter that the cap is intended to reduce the stresses on their peering links with the rest of the Internet, so internal stuff -shouldn't- count. That may even be true, but they have also denied Netflix's offers to place Netflix caching servers within Comcast's network to reduce the stresses that Netflix users cause by streaming. They refuse because they would rather have Netflix users pay more for bandwidth instead, and they would rather congest the links and be able to blame it on Netflix so they have a weapon against Net Neutrality.
An Internet provider should not be a content provider; there is an inherent conflict of interest. Forget Comcast's takeover of Cox, Comcast's actions against its competitors are the real problem here. The US needs an end to the local cable/telco monopolies/duopolies.
watching high def videos online
Whhhoooaaa, wait, I thought that was supposed to be the future of media. You know, DVD and Blu-Ray are dying, everyone is just going to stream everything all the time.
Since you know so much about this (clearly much more than someone you've never met and whose knowledge and experience you have no information about), please explain how you *know* that there are no vulnerabilities or malware on *any* smartphones that might compromise the data in one of many different e-wallet apps. Also, please explain how you *know* that there will *never* be such vulnerabilities or malware. I'm an empiricist. I have an open mind. Convince me. Better yet, show me where, when and by whom all e-wallet app code, APIs, and general security of smartphones have been evaluated and certified [wikipedia.org].
In principle, I agree with you, but I would probably agree with you a lot more if you were weighing a secure system against a semi-secure system. As we have seen, however, the CC system is -extremely- insecure, and it is very, very easy for your credit card info to find its ways into the wrong hand. Unscrupulous store employees who install skimmers on CC swipers, online retailers who store CC information in an insecure manner (and you'll never know if they do until they get hacked). Maybe you just used your credit card at Target last year. I just got a free year's worth of credit card monitoring because of all the hacks and exploited flaws last year.
I don't see how the phone wallet would be worse.
BitCoin is Fiat Currency for sure, but it is not like current USD money, in as much as there is no "FED" that can change the value at the drop of a hat
Yeah, instead it just changes value randomly and far more wildly as speculators jump in and out and currency exchanges get hacked and looted.
I was on mile 4 of a long bike ride when my rear tire failed. Not the tube (I carry a spare), the actual tire. I had decided not to bring my wallet with me, but I did have my phone. Anyway, I needed a replacement tire, but I had no money on me, and I realized that despite having my credit card number memorized, I didn't actually have any direct way to pay a bicycle shop for a tire, so I walked home.
Oh! I was on a century ride just the other weekend too. I got to a rest stop to find... oh yes, no signal. At least in the US there are still large swaths of land where there is no mobile access. No wireless, no cell towers. Even some tiny towns (or settlements too small to be incorporated) will have no cell service. They do have land lines though.
Cash is still accepted everywhere, so in one of those small back pockets of my bike jersey I keep my driver's license (for ID purposes), a credit card, and two $20 bills. In the other pocket is my phone, which is orders of magnitude heavier and bulkier and less reliable (and the phone scanning for cell towers and failing really drains the battery).
"sorry i'm a few minutes late were there any calls for me" no its "Your 2 minutes past the hour one more time you're fired"
If you're riding the line that closely, perhaps you shouldn't cut it that close. Get up earlier.
If you absolutely have to be in at work by 8:00am, not 8:02am, then you shouldn't plan to show up at 7:58am.
But, to be honest, there's a plethora of one-click installs of any game you can mention, legit and dubious, out there - complete with emulation and fixes for modern OS.
At this point I think it may be easier to run an older version of Windows in VirtualBox. Trying to get Civilization 2 working on a modern Windows machine (complete with no-CD hack) was PAINFUL. And mostly fruitless.
Ok, so we all know how to rip our music CDs, hopefully to lossless format.
How about CD-based video games? Long ago I used Daemon Tools to create a virtual CD drive so I didn't have to break out the CDs to play a game; is that still a thing?
I still have King's Quest II and Ultima III on original 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disks. I'll bet those don't work anymore.
I've even heard it surmised (possibly here) that putting a computer program in memory for execution is technically a copyright violation. It will never be tried in court as it goes way beyond the idea of common sense (even in today's corporate controlled courts), but it could be true.
But it was tried in court (sortof) in the Federal case Mai v. Peak. The court ruled that according to the rules of copyright, technically loading a program into RAM for execution does violate copyright, partially because RAM can be easily copyable (Anything that places a program in storage that is trivially copyable is a copyright violation).
The US Congress, Orrin Hatch in particular, thought this was silly, and amended the copyright code. Section 117 of the Copyright code currently reads:
"(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful."
#2 is your backup copy provision, #1 means you can run a program without infringing it, as long as you're just running it (and not decompiling it or something else of that nature).
Bringing up Neville had no purpose other than greatly blow the discussion out of proportion.
I'm not sure if you're trolling, intentionally trying to prove his point, or simply a symptom of the problem.
Well done, regardless.
So true. Watch the first movie (IV) again. It's terrible. Even the actors don't understand why they're delivering those cheesy lines.
I don't think it's that terrible, but the only reason it's good is that several of the actors rewrote their lines.
Harrison Ford: "You can write this shit, George, but you can't say it!"
"Wait a minute, when did any stormtrooper actually hit anything they aimed at? Even at point blank range?"
But look at those blast points... Too accurate for sand people!
Man, I want to see a comedy with those sand people now.
It's a bit easier to laugh with C3PO's stuck-up but competent antics rather than Jar-Jar's stupid, klutzy, and incompetent antics.
At least there's a reason for C3PO to be around, and he serves story purposes as a fine translator. Jar-Jar serves no purpose and the entire planet core sequence could have been scrapped and make no difference to the plot.
Still a better love story than Twilight.
I'm not so sure of that. Somehow, we might have found something worse this time.
I liked Tron. I grew up with Tron. Tron really helped spark my interest in computers, which has served me very well to this day.
That said, the original Tron had some staggering flaws, and aside from its status as being 'ground-breaking,' it's not a very good movie. Tron Legacy is a fine sequel that outdoes the original in many ways (including character and world, I'd say) but falls short in others.
This post really did not deserve to be downmodded.
It's not flamebait, and he's not trolling -- city life isn't for everyone. The original poster didn't insult people who prefer cities, he only stated he didn't understand the rationale behind it.
Unless you absolutely -worship- cities and find anyone who doesn't like the downsides morally repugnant, I'm not sure why you would mod this post down.