Just because code is written by russians with connections to the FSB doesn't mean it's necessarily bad...
The fact that russians wrote or at some point had access to the code doesn't automatically give them access to data that the code is later processing, unless there are backdoor in the code allowing them to gain access and there aren't some other mitigating factors (network filters, airgap etc) which prevent them from accessing the backdoor.
I found it!
//Da comrade! Insert phone home code here. We love Trump!
And how would you feel if within seconds of you posting anything (and I DO notice I'm replying to an AC, so I mean the collective 'you' here) a reply would appear essentially yelling, "THIS GUY IS A CONFIRMED NAZI! DON'T ASSOCIATE WITH HIM EVER!"?
Doesn't matter if it's true. There's no way of proving innocence or guilt. There's just this bot hounding you, following you through username and account changes. Isn't that the very DEFINITION of harassment and stalking?
Is it okay to do that because some of the targets, hell even if they have 100% accuracy, agree with Nazi ideology? Do we REALLY need to start saying "First they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Nazi..."?
Precisely.
Given the way people fling the term around these days, you could be the "nazi" next.
What's that, you disagree with being called that? You have some reasoned objections to make? Tell it to the bot, buddy. Tell it to the bot.
I remember a claim from the Final Fantasy movie how its CGI Characters are Indistinguishable from real people. But only hitting the Uncanny Valley very hard.
The problem I expect in the audio is like with CGI a bit too perfect, that it misses human imperfections, A computer doing a voice will do the voice is suppose to do. While a narrator while an expert at his craft, is affected by their emotions. When reading what they are saying will emotionally move them so this response will be in their voice.
Much like how CGI Characters even perfectly rendered ones, just don't show the details of the emotions.
Still... "it took over a hundred questions with Rachel, didn't it??"
accepting cash isn't free. Employees steal. You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts. Unless you run to the bank daily, you have to pay an armored car to pick it up and deposit it for you.
Er, neither is accepting cards free. There's a significant fee on every transaction, so much so that in some places (where it is allowed) businesses will offer a lower price to those who pay cash. .
(I'll grant you that a lot of the risk is offloaded to other entities when cards are used, and that therefore you might think the fees worthwhile in that respect. However, the customer and public are pissed at you, Spatula Warehouse, for having your systems compromised and their accounts hit with fraudulent charges, they are not pissed at Visa or BigBank.)
But in any case, accepting cards isn't free either.
The only reason I think cinemas exist at all is for people who want to watch new releases rather than wait for them to come out on disc.
The cinema used to offer something no other place could: A gigantic screen, supremely clear images, and an audio system that'd give you powerful volume from the chair-rumbling explosions to the chirping giggles of children. Then home cinema technology advanced.
Well, that's not all... society changed.
No, it was never perfect, but I know that audiences were better behaved, in general, when I was a kid. Who wants to pay top dollar to watch a movie with a bunch of rude jerks?
I sneered at lifetime reading plans. So earnest. So stuffy. {...} Two decades later, I'm more aware that the years pass swiftly, that reading time, like all time, is precious.
Not following her reasoning here. Feeling the preciousness of time more acutely as you age, sure. But how does that change whether a "lifetime reading plan" makes any sense?
Is there some exam in the afterlife that she needs to prepare for?
Although... I'm pretty sure they understand the word "entitlement" and the word "evidence" too -- something they say Mueller doesn't have, but they can't prove he doesn't, they just know it.
Um... in civilized countries, it's the prosecution who has to prove they have evidence, not the defense who has to prove they don't.
Hillary Clinton was unlikable, had nothing positive going for her, was a terrible campaigner, and oh yeah, both horrifically and comically mishandled classified information. And that's just for starters.
All that was real, no Russian anything needed. You lost because you sucked.
But please, keep deluding yourselves. It can only make your next loss more likely.
How about everyone? After all, when was the last time you started a conversation with someone you know by asking someone to authenticate their identity, rather than recognizing who they were and talking to them like normal? These companies are attempting to mimic the way things work in reality, which, generally speaking, is a good thing...when it’s done right.
You beat me to it. We all use visual and auditory recognition all the time and thereby assume we know the identity of the people we talk to.
I don't know about advertising, but LinkedIn requires you to include a year on employment history--another way employers filter by age, since it is universal practice nowdays (at least in tech) to review somebody's linkedin profile as part of screening. It is an easy way to determine somebody's age.
True. In response, I just drop my first few jobs from it.
I am so tired of stuff like this. Especially with batteries.
With Android, for another example, it's the "I'm going to poll - oops, I mean accept pushes - less and less frequently if you aren't waving the phone around. Because battery." So if you want Gmail to beep at you when the boss or the wife emails, too bad - it will beep at you only when it's good and ready, because battery!
But I want you to perform, battery be danged! "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that. I can't let you jeopardize the battery."
(Yes, I've twiddled every setting that supposedly will change this, and none of them do. I ended up having Gmail forward certain emails to my carrier's email to text service. Because texts are important, ya know, so you always get those.)
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
The CDC said this to themselves... they are censoring themselves?
They convinced themselves that talking differently was better for budget approval. Less charitably, they decided to get all weasel worded in the hopes of fooling the elected representatives of the people when said representatives were deciding on budgets.
It doesn't sound quite as noble that way though...
So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic but are claiming the reporting was bad. But, they've not gone further and relased a statement of what they said.
Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
Er, except in reality the CDC recommended to itself not to use the words, in order to trick those meanie Republicans into fully funding them as much as they wished. Since they just knew those knuckle draggers were knuckle draggers.
None of it came from Trump or Republicans at all.
So, yeah, it kinda was fake news.
It's kinda like watching an SNL parody, and then blaming a Republican for something that Tina Fey said (not that anyone would actually do that, lol)
For the love of Pete... we didn't need Russian "fake news" to not want to vote for Hillary. (Nor did most of use even see any, but whatever.)
No, really, we didn't. It's a great story to tell yourself, but we didn't. She was no-votable all by herself. With stuff she really did and said. Really.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because code is written by russians with connections to the FSB doesn't mean it's necessarily bad...
The fact that russians wrote or at some point had access to the code doesn't automatically give them access to data that the code is later processing, unless there are backdoor in the code allowing them to gain access and there aren't some other mitigating factors (network filters, airgap etc) which prevent them from accessing the backdoor.
I found it!
Yes, I'm a troll for literally quoting what they published.
They said that travelers may unknowingly pay more because some major hotels have text.
(The word "text" was the link.)
But travelers may unknowingly pay more and fail to see all of their options because some major hotels have text.
Someday Slashdot will develop a publishing system that let's you edit articles in draft mode ...
Are Slashdot's editors just imitating the mainstream media and leftists, who have been falsely accusing all sorts of people of being "nazis" lately?
Yes.
And how would you feel if within seconds of you posting anything (and I DO notice I'm replying to an AC, so I mean the collective 'you' here) a reply would appear essentially yelling, "THIS GUY IS A CONFIRMED NAZI! DON'T ASSOCIATE WITH HIM EVER!"?
Doesn't matter if it's true. There's no way of proving innocence or guilt. There's just this bot hounding you, following you through username and account changes. Isn't that the very DEFINITION of harassment and stalking?
Is it okay to do that because some of the targets, hell even if they have 100% accuracy, agree with Nazi ideology? Do we REALLY need to start saying "First they came for the Nazis, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Nazi ..."?
Precisely.
Given the way people fling the term around these days, you could be the "nazi" next.
What's that, you disagree with being called that? You have some reasoned objections to make? Tell it to the bot, buddy. Tell it to the bot.
I remember a claim from the Final Fantasy movie how its CGI Characters are Indistinguishable from real people. But only hitting the Uncanny Valley very hard. The problem I expect in the audio is like with CGI a bit too perfect, that it misses human imperfections, A computer doing a voice will do the voice is suppose to do. While a narrator while an expert at his craft, is affected by their emotions. When reading what they are saying will emotionally move them so this response will be in their voice. Much like how CGI Characters even perfectly rendered ones, just don't show the details of the emotions.
Still ... "it took over a hundred questions with Rachel, didn't it??"
accepting cash isn't free. Employees steal. You have to do the paperwork to keep track of it and account for all the receipts. Unless you run to the bank daily, you have to pay an armored car to pick it up and deposit it for you.
Er, neither is accepting cards free. There's a significant fee on every transaction, so much so that in some places (where it is allowed) businesses will offer a lower price to those who pay cash. .
(I'll grant you that a lot of the risk is offloaded to other entities when cards are used, and that therefore you might think the fees worthwhile in that respect. However, the customer and public are pissed at you, Spatula Warehouse, for having your systems compromised and their accounts hit with fraudulent charges, they are not pissed at Visa or BigBank.)
But in any case, accepting cards isn't free either.
The only reason I think cinemas exist at all is for people who want to watch new releases rather than wait for them to come out on disc.
The cinema used to offer something no other place could: A gigantic screen, supremely clear images, and an audio system that'd give you powerful volume from the chair-rumbling explosions to the chirping giggles of children. Then home cinema technology advanced.
Well, that's not all ... society changed.
No, it was never perfect, but I know that audiences were better behaved, in general, when I was a kid. Who wants to pay top dollar to watch a movie with a bunch of rude jerks?
I sneered at lifetime reading plans. So earnest. So stuffy. {...} Two decades later, I'm more aware that the years pass swiftly, that reading time, like all time, is precious.
Not following her reasoning here. Feeling the preciousness of time more acutely as you age, sure. But how does that change whether a "lifetime reading plan" makes any sense?
Is there some exam in the afterlife that she needs to prepare for?
Although... I'm pretty sure they understand the word "entitlement" and the word "evidence" too -- something they say Mueller doesn't have, but they can't prove he doesn't, they just know it.
Um ... in civilized countries, it's the prosecution who has to prove they have evidence, not the defense who has to prove they don't.
... when will you get it?
Hillary Clinton was unlikable, had nothing positive going for her, was a terrible campaigner, and oh yeah, both horrifically and comically mishandled classified information. And that's just for starters.
All that was real, no Russian anything needed. You lost because you sucked.
But please, keep deluding yourselves. It can only make your next loss more likely.
Yes, Google offers the exact same service.
For now ...
With Google your best bet is to hope that they forgot about the existence of a service, and will thus let it keep running by default.
I haven't worn a watch in years because I have my smartphone.
My compelling reason to wear a computer (other than the smartphone unobtrusively in my pocket) is ... ?
How about everyone? After all, when was the last time you started a conversation with someone you know by asking someone to authenticate their identity, rather than recognizing who they were and talking to them like normal? These companies are attempting to mimic the way things work in reality, which, generally speaking, is a good thing...when it’s done right.
You beat me to it. We all use visual and auditory recognition all the time and thereby assume we know the identity of the people we talk to.
I don't know about advertising, but LinkedIn requires you to include a year on employment history--another way employers filter by age, since it is universal practice nowdays (at least in tech) to review somebody's linkedin profile as part of screening. It is an easy way to determine somebody's age.
True. In response, I just drop my first few jobs from it.
Some companies explicitly allow personal printing. It's environmentally responsible, as it means fewer printers and wasted ink/toner.
Why not; it's a cheap benefit as long as the employee isn't running a print business on the side.
Dang, my wife loves the free cardboard boxes for various purposes.
How is a free cardboard box that is more environmentally friendly than plastic wrap a "problem"?
As I mentioned, I did that. Didn't work.
I am so tired of stuff like this. Especially with batteries.
With Android, for another example, it's the "I'm going to poll - oops, I mean accept pushes - less and less frequently if you aren't waving the phone around. Because battery." So if you want Gmail to beep at you when the boss or the wife emails, too bad - it will beep at you only when it's good and ready, because battery!
But I want you to perform, battery be danged! "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that. I can't let you jeopardize the battery."
(Yes, I've twiddled every setting that supposedly will change this, and none of them do. I ended up having Gmail forward certain emails to my carrier's email to text service. Because texts are important, ya know, so you always get those.)
"But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases. "
If you use these words, your budget may be cut. How is that not a ban?
The CDC said this to themselves ... they are censoring themselves?
They convinced themselves that talking differently was better for budget approval. Less charitably, they decided to get all weasel worded in the hopes of fooling the elected representatives of the people when said representatives were deciding on budgets.
It doesn't sound quite as noble that way though ...
Also, you know, it's not precisely fake news now is it:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/1...
So the HHS said calling it a ban was a "mischaracterization", which means they have admitted something was said on the topic but are claiming the reporting was bad. But, they've not gone further and relased a statement of what they said.
Bleatig about fake ews makes you sounds foolish, because you're drawing an equivalence between this and something like pizzagate which was completely fabricated.
Er, except in reality the CDC recommended to itself not to use the words, in order to trick those meanie Republicans into fully funding them as much as they wished. Since they just knew those knuckle draggers were knuckle draggers.
None of it came from Trump or Republicans at all.
So, yeah, it kinda was fake news.
It's kinda like watching an SNL parody, and then blaming a Republican for something that Tina Fey said (not that anyone would actually do that, lol)
Says the right-wing snowflake.
That's so cute watching you guys try to turn that term around. It must really sting.
No, sorry, you are the ones with the "safe spaces" and the coloring books. Ain't going to work ...
"It seems odd than an airport is so unprepared for a power outage."
Simple solution. The government will prohibit the word 'power-outage' and presto, no problemo.
Or maybe they could buy some generators instead of hiring another airport diversity commissioner. But that wouldn't win as many +1 Snarky mods.
"How to make a protest sign." Good Lord.
As though that were some positive feel good thing, like the others mentioned.
(Not to mention, seriously? You can't figure out how to make a sign? But you want to influence serious things?)
For the love of Pete ... we didn't need Russian "fake news" to not want to vote for Hillary. (Nor did most of use even see any, but whatever.)
No, really, we didn't. It's a great story to tell yourself, but we didn't. She was no-votable all by herself. With stuff she really did and said. Really.