First note the words "may have been". Second, many rulings turn on intent and consequences of the actions at hand. So, consider that if names and numbers were listed in text, then the "look how public records have SSNs" becomes less plausible. It also makes it easier for the SSNs to be taken and used fraudulently. It is one thing for me to say, "go to site X, type the following SQL injection into thus-and-such a field, click button Y, and notice you get a bunch of CC names, numbers, and expr. dates," and another thing for me to say, "here is a text file of a bunch of CC names, numbers, and expr. dates, gotten from site X." Whether the second opens me up to liability is in question (I again refer to "may have been"), but it is clearly less safe. It gets closer to identity information brokers, which can be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud.
The prime is not worth $100k. Calculating primes this big is like calculating the next 1,000,000,000,000 digits of Pi. Rather, the development of the community and software necessary to compute the prime is. If you had RTFA, you would have seen this:
EFF hopes to spur the technology of cooperative networking and encourage Internet users worldwide to join together in solving scientific problems involving massive computation.
There is actually a reasonable bit known about the form of any odd perfect numbers, should they exist. For example, Euler showed that any odd perfect number N is of the form N = q^a * p_1^(2*e_1) *... * p_k^(2*e_k), where q, p_1,..., p_k are distinct primes, and q and a are congruent to 1 mod 4. Other constraints are listed in the Wikipedia article.
[Google's] success is also dependent on [...] externalizing the majority of infrastructure costs to the taxpayer.
Where did that come from? I can not think of anything here that fits. Clearly you are not talking about Google-owned infrastructure like their data centers et.al. Perhaps you mean internet infrastructure, since this was funded in the past by the government. But then, that is true about the electrical/sewer/telephone/etc. infrastructure. At this point, the initial investment has been paid, and none of these are funded by the government. All services are paid for. Google pays well for good Internet connectivity, and users pay for connectivity; each Internet provider pays its providers recursively, funding all through that money. Where are the charges getting externalized to the taxpayer? Roads?
Hah! My RAZR has a mini USB connector, but you can't attach any random USB cable to it -- you get an "Unauthorized Charger" error and it refuses to charge. Fortunately it will use the power so you can make calls as long as you are plugged in, but it won't charge. Then they charge for all the little charging devices (like for the car). If you get their CD (for a price), you can turn your PC into an "authorized charger", but only if you have Windows -- they don't have Mac/Linux/whatever drivers.
* or crazy things like the way you can plug a device into a Mac and it's fine but if you plug it into the USB port on the keyboard you get a "not enough power" warning. WTF?!?
The keyboard on a Mac is a hub. Hubs generally do not provide as much power on the line as an on-board port does (the hub itself uses power, and must share power with everything plugged into it), unless the hub is powered. This is why a number of peripherals specifically state that they must be plugged into an on-board USB port.
If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children
You have an odd idea what "being children" means.
As far as the rest, it sounds like we agree that people not being team players is bad, and sometimes management does not properly handle this. However, many people come into a job with constraints (not just family -- how about someone on dialysis?), and sometimes those constraints are not negotiable. If those constraints are not appropriately discussed beforehand, then that is a failure of another kind. If someone is going home to pick up kids frequently, then that needs to be taken into account to prevent barriers to progress. I do not agree that the consequence must be that someone else has to do the work or others will be stalled -- people leave for home and come into work every day at different times and things manage to work just fine. But, sometimes constraints impact work; children are not a special case. Flexibility is necessary for a good work environment. However, I do agree with what seems implied in your statements -- people taking advantage of a situation for selfish gain is generally detrimental to team health.
Google employees can make six figures -- I was offered that less than two years out of grad school. Remember that the salaries in the bay area are quite high -- but then so is the cost of living. Day care costs less in many other places. Also, the only people who pay for day care are those people who have salaries high enough to make day care worth while. For example, my wife would not be able to pull in an income that would cover more than the cost of daycare and other expenses related to working, and therefore doesn't work, but instead cares for our child at home.
So, you object to people spending less time in the office than other people on the same team? Okay. That's valid IF time spent in the office == productivity (measured in team dynamics/whatever you want). Granted that, people have all sorts of reasons to spend less time in the office, not just kids. If your workplace is one where people with certain reasons are allowed to do things detrimental to the team/company that other people aren't just because some manager arbitrarily likes the reason, then your company has serious problems. Flexibility is good, but non-productivity is supposed to have appropriate consequences.
As far as "screaming spawn", you sound, um, not sure what to say. I have had a number of coworkers bring in children, and never have any screamed. Should they be screaming, there are a couple people lacking judgment here -- the parent for not quieting the child or leaving, and the manager for not telling the parent to take a vacation/unpaid-leave day.
For the record, I have a wife and child, and have brought mine into work.
People don't believe in Jesus because of Mary's claim that God made her pregnant. People believe in Jesus because of claims about his miracles & resurrection.
Isn't a virgin birth one of those miracles? By casting doubt on that miracle, you cast doubt on Jesus's divinity.
Only for those that make a (not "the") virgin (not "Virgin") birth a prerequisite for divinity. I don't. This is especially important when you take into account that many scholars now believe that the word translated "virgin" was a word that also meant "young girl/woman", though this is generally not brought up outside of intellectual circles. If you look, many references are to "the Virgin (birth)" as opposed to "the virgin (birth)" (notice the capitalization), which indicates a title, rather than the standard English meaning.
But yes, the most important question to settle is whether a "Jesus" actually ever existed in the first place. There's not much evidence for that assertion outside the Bible.
The Historicity of Jesus on Wikipedia. There are a large number of contemporary religious writings concerning Jesus outside the canon ("the Bible"), both Christian and not. There are also other non-religious documents that refer to him. Most people accept the existence of the man, even if not some version of what is in the various religious writings.
`spook' is an interactive compiled Lisp function
-- loaded from "spook"
(spook)
Documentation:
Adds that special touch of class to your outgoing mail.
Project Monarch World Trade Center militia Delta Force New World Order Watergate Ft. Knox Semtex SEAL Team 6 counter-intelligence Albania Saddam Hussein Ortega Serbian cryptographic
You've never spent hours on a single bug? And you only work on code you yourself have written? Wow, I wish I were you. Then all of the memory leaks, uninitialized values, pointer screwups, etc. that I have dealt with in the past will either never exist or be easily tracked down and fixed within minutes.
Objective-C is essentially unrelated to C++ in every way. C++0x does not change this fact at all. Comparing the two makes just slightly more sense than comparing C++ and Prolog.
Actually, it makes more than "just slightly more sense". C++ is an imperative OO language based on C, as is Objective-C, while Prolog is a declarative logic programming language based on formal logic. Objective-C and C++ intersect roughly at the C language, but they don't intersect with Prolog at all. That said, the question does betray an ignorance of Objective-C and C++ being two completely separate extensions of C.
Slashdot Mirror
censorship
Oh, first post?
Not by two minutes. :-)
First note the words "may have been". Second, many rulings turn on intent and consequences of the actions at hand. So, consider that if names and numbers were listed in text, then the "look how public records have SSNs" becomes less plausible. It also makes it easier for the SSNs to be taken and used fraudulently. It is one thing for me to say, "go to site X, type the following SQL injection into thus-and-such a field, click button Y, and notice you get a bunch of CC names, numbers, and expr. dates," and another thing for me to say, "here is a text file of a bunch of CC names, numbers, and expr. dates, gotten from site X." Whether the second opens me up to liability is in question (I again refer to "may have been"), but it is clearly less safe. It gets closer to identity information brokers, which can be charged with conspiracy to commit fraud.
EFF hopes to spur the technology of cooperative networking and encourage Internet users worldwide to join together in solving scientific problems involving massive computation.
There is actually a reasonable bit known about the form of any odd perfect numbers, should they exist. For example, Euler showed that any odd perfect number N is of the form N = q^a * p_1^(2*e_1) * ... * p_k^(2*e_k), where q, p_1, ..., p_k are distinct primes, and q and a are congruent to 1 mod 4. Other constraints are listed in the Wikipedia article.
[Google's] success is also dependent on [...] externalizing the majority of infrastructure costs to the taxpayer.
Where did that come from? I can not think of anything here that fits. Clearly you are not talking about Google-owned infrastructure like their data centers et.al. Perhaps you mean internet infrastructure, since this was funded in the past by the government. But then, that is true about the electrical/sewer/telephone/etc. infrastructure. At this point, the initial investment has been paid, and none of these are funded by the government. All services are paid for. Google pays well for good Internet connectivity, and users pay for connectivity; each Internet provider pays its providers recursively, funding all through that money. Where are the charges getting externalized to the taxpayer? Roads?
Hah! My RAZR has a mini USB connector, but you can't attach any random USB cable to it -- you get an "Unauthorized Charger" error and it refuses to charge. Fortunately it will use the power so you can make calls as long as you are plugged in, but it won't charge. Then they charge for all the little charging devices (like for the car). If you get their CD (for a price), you can turn your PC into an "authorized charger", but only if you have Windows -- they don't have Mac/Linux/whatever drivers.
* or crazy things like the way you can plug a device into a Mac and it's fine but if you plug it into the USB port on the keyboard you get a "not enough power" warning. WTF?!?
The keyboard on a Mac is a hub. Hubs generally do not provide as much power on the line as an on-board port does (the hub itself uses power, and must share power with everything plugged into it), unless the hub is powered. This is why a number of peripherals specifically state that they must be plugged into an on-board USB port.
Why are you clicking on it? What part of *NSFW* is unclear?
Not that there is really anything on it: http://www.jeffdeck.com/teal
A cached version is better: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:_bZiVdfV1PwJ:jeffdeck.com/teal/about.html
Here is a search (make sure to look at the cached versions): http://www.google.com/search?q=site:jeffdeck.com+Typo+Eradication+Advancement+League
That's not what he said.
If they're running around and yelling and, ya know, being children
You have an odd idea what "being children" means.
As far as the rest, it sounds like we agree that people not being team players is bad, and sometimes management does not properly handle this. However, many people come into a job with constraints (not just family -- how about someone on dialysis?), and sometimes those constraints are not negotiable. If those constraints are not appropriately discussed beforehand, then that is a failure of another kind. If someone is going home to pick up kids frequently, then that needs to be taken into account to prevent barriers to progress. I do not agree that the consequence must be that someone else has to do the work or others will be stalled -- people leave for home and come into work every day at different times and things manage to work just fine. But, sometimes constraints impact work; children are not a special case. Flexibility is necessary for a good work environment. However, I do agree with what seems implied in your statements -- people taking advantage of a situation for selfish gain is generally detrimental to team health.
Google employees can make six figures -- I was offered that less than two years out of grad school. Remember that the salaries in the bay area are quite high -- but then so is the cost of living. Day care costs less in many other places. Also, the only people who pay for day care are those people who have salaries high enough to make day care worth while. For example, my wife would not be able to pull in an income that would cover more than the cost of daycare and other expenses related to working, and therefore doesn't work, but instead cares for our child at home.
So, you object to people spending less time in the office than other people on the same team? Okay. That's valid IF time spent in the office == productivity (measured in team dynamics/whatever you want). Granted that, people have all sorts of reasons to spend less time in the office, not just kids. If your workplace is one where people with certain reasons are allowed to do things detrimental to the team/company that other people aren't just because some manager arbitrarily likes the reason, then your company has serious problems. Flexibility is good, but non-productivity is supposed to have appropriate consequences.
As far as "screaming spawn", you sound, um, not sure what to say. I have had a number of coworkers bring in children, and never have any screamed. Should they be screaming, there are a couple people lacking judgment here -- the parent for not quieting the child or leaving, and the manager for not telling the parent to take a vacation/unpaid-leave day.
For the record, I have a wife and child, and have brought mine into work.
People don't believe in Jesus because of Mary's claim that God made her pregnant. People believe in Jesus because of claims about his miracles & resurrection.
Isn't a virgin birth one of those miracles? By casting doubt on that miracle, you cast doubt on Jesus's divinity.
Only for those that make a (not "the") virgin (not "Virgin") birth a prerequisite for divinity. I don't. This is especially important when you take into account that many scholars now believe that the word translated "virgin" was a word that also meant "young girl/woman", though this is generally not brought up outside of intellectual circles. If you look, many references are to "the Virgin (birth)" as opposed to "the virgin (birth)" (notice the capitalization), which indicates a title, rather than the standard English meaning.
But yes, the most important question to settle is whether a "Jesus" actually ever existed in the first place. There's not much evidence for that assertion outside the Bible.
The Historicity of Jesus on Wikipedia. There are a large number of contemporary religious writings concerning Jesus outside the canon ("the Bible"), both Christian and not. There are also other non-religious documents that refer to him. Most people accept the existence of the man, even if not some version of what is in the various religious writings.
Last time this topic arose, I saw Anda's Game . Quite an enjoyable read.
Good Lord, M-x spook is real.
From the docs:
Project Monarch World Trade Center militia Delta Force New World Order Watergate Ft. Knox Semtex SEAL Team 6 counter-intelligence Albania Saddam Hussein Ortega Serbian cryptographic
We're sorry, you're going to have to come with us.
The FBI
Actually, I would say that 1984 is a much better known example.
Bulshytt! New words in books are doubleplusgood!
And we are supposed to take the word of an AC on faith?
(If the parent weren't (Score:3, Interesting) I would have ignored this smug vacuous statement.)
You've never spent hours on a single bug? And you only work on code you yourself have written? Wow, I wish I were you. Then all of the memory leaks, uninitialized values, pointer screwups, etc. that I have dealt with in the past will either never exist or be easily tracked down and fixed within minutes.
Objective-C is essentially unrelated to C++ in every way. C++0x does not change this fact at all. Comparing the two makes just slightly more sense than comparing C++ and Prolog.
Actually, it makes more than "just slightly more sense". C++ is an imperative OO language based on C, as is Objective-C, while Prolog is a declarative logic programming language based on formal logic. Objective-C and C++ intersect roughly at the C language, but they don't intersect with Prolog at all. That said, the question does betray an ignorance of Objective-C and C++ being two completely separate extensions of C.
How about Perl?
http://www.linuxtopia.org/Perl_Programming/pickingUpPerl_29.html
Oh, this reminds me of a guy, born and raised in South Africa, who loves calling himself "African-American" because he is white.