And here I was thinking that terjeber was just trolling.... I suppose it's possible he/she/it really believes what they say. I think would require a level of credulity not often seen around here.
Business students are likely the worst possible people to allow to run a business. The all seem to focus on short term gains and things to boost their resume so they can move on to another company and do the same thing there. No matter the short term gain turns to a short and/or long term loss after they've gone. Or you have the long timers who stay with one company and boost their own department at the expense of other departments in the same company, getting praise for their efforts while the company nosedives due to their effort. Kodak failed because it had too many MBAs in positions of power, like any other parasite, they eventually kill the host.
I'm not a radio-head, so I don't know what you get for using two antennas each for 1/2 duplex instead of one at full duplex; but I cannot imagine it's twice as fast, or everyone would be doing it.
Unfortunately there are id10ts out there (typically upper management) who once heard the phrase offsite backup from one of their golf buddies, and thought it meant "have the IT staff take the backup home with them, in case there's a fire". Continuing with some variation of: "Besides, if we need something restored they can get it back faster than iron mountain"
I heard someone in the office say that the claim was 2 antennas make it communicate twice as fast. The sad thing is, people will believe that, many people.
The people who lived in Iceland named it Greenland so people would go live there; they named Iceland for the same reason, so people would go live in Greenland.:)
giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.
What crime is that?
Aiding and abetting.
If I tell a hostage taker to put down his guns and turn himself in I am helping him but I don't think anyone would consider that a crime.
Giving someone a command is not helping them, it's commanding them.
If the police say, "we've got you surrounded", that is not a crime either. Letting the suspect know there is no escape is not so different from telling him to surrender.
Telling them how to evade capture or otherwise helping them commit the crime is a crime though. I'm not sure why you think those other things have anything to do with what I said. Twisting my words around won't change the facts either.
That's the problem with the law -- you cannot qualify "...in the process of committing a crime" because that implies intent (and someone could claim that they were misconstrued). So, the law would effectively framed such that giving someone information to help them is a crime, qualifying the nature of the information (but never the situation). And then, you're screwed.
are you some kind of lawyer?
I grant that some crimes are not apparent; but some crimes are blatantly obvious. Obviously you should not be able to get convicted of helping in a crime if the person committing the crime is not convicted, but if the person is convicted of a crime and you helped them in carrying out the crime, then you should go to jail too.
i.e.If someone tells a man coming out of the back door of a bank carrying a large sack, "hey don't go that way, there are cops there" when he starts to leave, he is guilty of aiding the criminal.
I can see that posting on YOUR Facebook page shouldn't be actionable; but if you post information to a CRIMINAL's Facebook page or messages them information to help them in a crime they boast about on the same page as being in the act of committing, that should get them a nice cell next to the guy they helped.
Helping criminals commit crimes is a crime.
There is a difference between helping and not hindering. I am under no legal obligation to hinder a criminal, afaik.
It's up to the courts to determine the facts of the matter, the police should just arrest folks who appear to have broken the law.
p.s. do you understand there is a difference between "guilty of a crime" and "convicted of a crime".
Disclosing information that is publicly available publicly is one thing; giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.
Teeth found as least as far back as Neanderthal are almost universally worn flat in anyone who survived to adulthood. Also, abscesses, often wearing away bone all the way up into the sinuses, are very common in pleistocene remains from the Americas. (The individuals must have been in constant pain for years. Ouch.)
We've also found a lot of teeth that were badly decayed, and forcibly extracted. Sometimes in pieces. Ice age dentistry wasn't pretty.
Wait?!? You mean they don't still do it that way? Crap I need a new dentist. My last extraction resulted in about five pieces. (OK it was in the '80s)
And after Apple has put it's competitors out of business is can pick and choose from all the "failed" apps that are better than theirs, buy them at a cut rate, and re-release them as Apple software... sounds like almost free R&D for Apple. Why write good software when you can let other folks do it, then crush them and take it.
Or when they play ads from time to time... sorry officer targeted advertising in my legally mandated eye-wear, please apologize to everyone I hit on behalf of N!ke, Micro$oft, BigPharma, and W@llM@rt.
I have found that, when talking to folks who claim to have 20/20, I always have better vision with my glasses. People complain about the size of the font I use on the screen, when I'm not using the bottom of the bifocal to read it. I tell them to get their eyes checked, they claim to have 20/20 vision. They are in denial and/or my eyes are just better, corrected, than theirs.
What I cannot comprehend why someone would be willing to accept worse vision to go a couple for years without glasses, then need glasses anyway. (i.e. laser surgery) And maybe hose up their night vision permanently. Of course I've had glasses since I was 10, so I'm used to them. And they've only gotten better over the 30+ years since then. I have tried trifocals and progressive lenses and they both give me significant distortion issues. (and "seasickness") So I'll stick with the nice, big secondary region, lined bifocal.
I like the idea of changing the WHOLE lens "near instantly" to whatever you need to focus on, but that tech may be a bit long in coming. And the whole battery thing would be a bad thing at failure time, possibly. We just need the S-F authors to solve it for us.:)
They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head. If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
I tried bifocal sunglasses for a while, had the same issue with blurry feet. So sunglasses are single vision, clear glasses are bifocal. Now I just go with the whole "if it's dark I can't see my feet anyway, wear sunglasses outside" thing.
Slashdot Mirror
And here I was thinking that terjeber was just trolling.... I suppose it's possible he/she/it really believes what they say. I think would require a level of credulity not often seen around here.
Business students are likely the worst possible people to allow to run a business. The all seem to focus on short term gains and things to boost their resume so they can move on to another company and do the same thing there. No matter the short term gain turns to a short and/or long term loss after they've gone. Or you have the long timers who stay with one company and boost their own department at the expense of other departments in the same company, getting praise for their efforts while the company nosedives due to their effort.
Kodak failed because it had too many MBAs in positions of power, like any other parasite, they eventually kill the host.
Oh wait, so it's not about Skype?
I'm not a radio-head, so I don't know what you get for using two antennas each for 1/2 duplex instead of one at full duplex; but I cannot imagine it's twice as fast, or everyone would be doing it.
Not claiming they are perfect, just saying the not-so-well-thought-out "additional measures" are less than helpful, as a rule. :)
Unfortunately there are id10ts out there (typically upper management) who once heard the phrase offsite backup from one of their golf buddies, and thought it meant "have the IT staff take the backup home with them, in case there's a fire". Continuing with some variation of: "Besides, if we need something restored they can get it back faster than iron mountain"
The hours I've argued...
I heard someone in the office say that the claim was 2 antennas make it communicate twice as fast.
The sad thing is, people will believe that, many people.
I got to see one from as close as Orlando once, but that was 1985. :(
The people who lived in Iceland named it Greenland so people would go live there; they named Iceland for the same reason, so people would go live in Greenland. :)
What crime is that?
Aiding and abetting.
If I tell a hostage taker to put down his guns and turn himself in I am helping him but I don't think anyone would consider that a crime.
Giving someone a command is not helping them, it's commanding them.
If the police say, "we've got you surrounded", that is not a crime either. Letting the suspect know there is no escape is not so different from telling him to surrender.
Telling them how to evade capture or otherwise helping them commit the crime is a crime though.
I'm not sure why you think those other things have anything to do with what I said.
Twisting my words around won't change the facts either.
That's the problem with the law -- you cannot qualify "...in the process of committing a crime" because that implies intent (and someone could claim that they were misconstrued). So, the law would effectively framed such that giving someone information to help them is a crime, qualifying the nature of the information (but never the situation). And then, you're screwed.
are you some kind of lawyer?
I grant that some crimes are not apparent; but some crimes are blatantly obvious.
Obviously you should not be able to get convicted of helping in a crime if the person committing the crime is not convicted, but if the person is convicted of a crime and you helped them in carrying out the crime, then you should go to jail too.
i.e.If someone tells a man coming out of the back door of a bank carrying a large sack, "hey don't go that way, there are cops there" when he starts to leave, he is guilty of aiding the criminal.
I can see that posting on YOUR Facebook page shouldn't be actionable; but if you post information to a CRIMINAL's Facebook page or messages them information to help them in a crime they boast about on the same page as being in the act of committing, that should get them a nice cell next to the guy they helped.
Helping criminals commit crimes is a crime.
There is a difference between helping and not hindering. I am under no legal obligation to hinder a criminal, afaik.
It's up to the courts to determine the facts of the matter, the police should just arrest folks who appear to have broken the law.
p.s. do you understand there is a difference between "guilty of a crime" and "convicted of a crime".
Disclosing information that is publicly available publicly is one thing; giving someone, in the process of committing a crime, information to help them, is a crime.
Human teeth really suck that much.
Teeth found as least as far back as Neanderthal are almost universally worn flat in anyone who survived to adulthood. Also, abscesses, often wearing away bone all the way up into the sinuses, are very common in pleistocene remains from the Americas. (The individuals must have been in constant pain for years. Ouch.)
We've also found a lot of teeth that were badly decayed, and forcibly extracted. Sometimes in pieces. Ice age dentistry wasn't pretty.
Wait?!? You mean they don't still do it that way? Crap I need a new dentist.
My last extraction resulted in about five pieces. (OK it was in the '80s)
Is that part of the Heineken uncertainty principle?
And after Apple has put it's competitors out of business is can pick and choose from all the "failed" apps that are better than theirs, buy them at a cut rate, and re-release them as Apple software... sounds like almost free R&D for Apple. Why write good software when you can let other folks do it, then crush them and take it.
You mean when the machines blot out the sun to deprive us of solar power?
Wait, isn't that backwards? I'm confused.
Like when we run out of sun. That thing isn't going to be around forever. When are politicians going to address the issue of Peak Sunlight?
about the time the crust of the earth boils off due to being inside a red giant.
Mmm, beer.
Right, and what exactly acts as a lens for X-rays again?
And would a "lens flare" for an x-ray lens be an actual ignition of material? :)
I think you mean General Products hull.
General Dynamics would be like... Eureka.
Sorry, that came out a lot more adversarial that I intended.
Certain of that? or do you just think it SHOULD be true?
How could they sue in civil court if slander and libel were protected speech?
Because civil court has nothing to due with law, just lawsuits.
Or when they play ads from time to time... sorry officer targeted advertising in my legally mandated eye-wear, please apologize to everyone I hit on behalf of N!ke, Micro$oft, BigPharma, and W@llM@rt.
I have found that, when talking to folks who claim to have 20/20, I always have better vision with my glasses.
People complain about the size of the font I use on the screen, when I'm not using the bottom of the bifocal to read it.
I tell them to get their eyes checked, they claim to have 20/20 vision.
They are in denial and/or my eyes are just better, corrected, than theirs.
What I cannot comprehend why someone would be willing to accept worse vision to go a couple for years without glasses, then need glasses anyway. (i.e. laser surgery)
And maybe hose up their night vision permanently.
Of course I've had glasses since I was 10, so I'm used to them. And they've only gotten better over the 30+ years since then.
I have tried trifocals and progressive lenses and they both give me significant distortion issues. (and "seasickness")
So I'll stick with the nice, big secondary region, lined bifocal.
I like the idea of changing the WHOLE lens "near instantly" to whatever you need to focus on, but that tech may be a bit long in coming. :)
And the whole battery thing would be a bad thing at failure time, possibly.
We just need the S-F authors to solve it for us.
They could put in a rangefinder that automatically chose the correct magnification based on what's in front of your head.
If there was an in FOV "aiming dot" (a la HUD) you could aim the range finder at your object of interest.
I tried bifocal sunglasses for a while, had the same issue with blurry feet.
So sunglasses are single vision, clear glasses are bifocal.
Now I just go with the whole "if it's dark I can't see my feet anyway, wear sunglasses outside" thing.