I think you - and the spammer - don't know that the links in comments are no-follow links.
I didn't know. Let me check.
Ooops, the way I understand nofollow, these type of links are meant to have the rel="nofollow" attribute. Now (using Chrome), if I right-click/"Inspect element" on such a link, I don't see the "rel" attribute being defined (neither in the element's text representation, nor in the "Properties" of the "HTMLAnchorElement") - so I suspect that Google's crawler won't see it either.
Are you absolutely sure that what you know is currently accurate? Admitting that the past has seen/. using the nofollow approach, are you absolutely sure that/. didn't silently drop it - e.g. to increase their chances of being seen a "preferred source of ad click-throughs"?
In actuality this will fuck up the SEO from this scam artist who wrote MYCleanPC.com and counters his slimy spamming advertising MyCleanPC.
If everyone here on slashdot points to other disgusting sites for MyCleanPC, then people searching for malware virus removal with MyCleanPC will have an awful surprise!:-)
In actuality this will fuck up the SEO from this scam artist who wrote MYCleanPC.com and counters his slimy spamming advertising MyCleanPC.
If everyone here on slashdot points to other disgusting sites for MyCleanPC, then people searching for malware virus removal with MyCleanPC will have an awful surprise!:-)
He got an A in Chem. E. but failed Logic 101. A -> B does not mean that !A -> !B (A = Theresa has slept with him, B = there has previously been a cold night in hell).
It didn't occur to you that "time to call" could mean "Let's give it a try, now that the restriction is lifted", did it?
(if you are so geeky that cannot grasp the real life, here's the explanation in formal logic: A->B means !B->!A. Since !B is now F, if you go back to your Logic 101 and check the truth table for implication, you'll discover A can be now in either T/F and the !B->!A is still T. It means either A and !A are both now possible without contradicting the original A->B rule. At this stage, somebody with more that contemplative spirit would let the formal logic aside and try the truth value of the desirable choice by other means).
Update - the TFS seems like a piece meant for "sensationalism" rather than journalism.
If the "drawing ire over batching by punch the monkey" is real, it should have happened as early as March 30 this year, when the notification about "digital archery" was made public by ICANN.
What you don't want to do, is leave the impression that this is just a joke for you and let your customers play (rather silly) games for it (like ican did).
Ah, BTW, this wasn't new and shouldn't take the applicants by surprise: visit the "Batching information" page, scroll to the bottom and read the date for the "Update on New gTLD Batching" (spoiler: it reads "Mar 30 2012". If you follow the link, you'll discover that a video was made available early April this year).
There are three options that come to mind:
1) First come, first serve (though this requires that you don't mess up the registration process) (fair, if done right)
Not different from "archery", just at an earlier stage: assuming that you want to be absolutely fair, you advertise the "T-zero for application lodging" and it's up to the applicants to hit as close as possible that moment (even harder than the current approach, since any application lodged before T0 should be discarded).
3) Lottery / Random process (fair)
The third requires an audit/verification process to prove it was truly random, but it's not that difficult to do. If done right, this is the fairest option.
Why develop a "random generator system" that need to be audited, instead of putting "the faith of their application into the applicants' own hands" (by "digital archery")?
What you don't want to do, is leave the impression that this is just a joke for you and let your customers play (rather silly) games for it (like ican did).
Why does this appear to you as "silly"? (because it was you to rally on the "rather silly... as ican did" accusation).
I remember that, when generating a private/public key pair, some applications asked me to type something/anything at the keyboard: doesn't matter what, only the key-press timing info was used in seeding the RandGen. Now, maybe because I'm closer to an engineer mindset, but I didn't consider the request as "silly"... on the contrary.
If a coin toss at the start of a game (make if finale) in a championship is good enough to decide which of the teams/players will start, why would not "digital archery" be good enough in this case as well?
How else ICANN could be appear (and actually be) impartial/non-biased? Even more so because it does rely on the actual "players" to "toss their own coin", thus eliminating any doubt about "rigged equipment" from establishing "random winners"?
But if you are talking about business in the 6 figure range something a little more sophisticated should be used. Unless of course you want to look like a bunch of script kiddies far out of their league.
1. (Hey! I'm just kidding here) why would engineers try to abstain making fun of "businesses in the 6 figure range"?
2. I'm developing now a "Resource scheduler" for a dept that have more booking request than resources to allocate. After going-back-an-forth in the search for a "fair solution" in establishing the priorities, the management decided that the only way to make it "fair" is to record all the booking request and, at the end of the week, run a "lottery" for the allocation schedule the next week.
My point: sometimes the only fair allocation/prioritization algorithm is to let the chance decide - if it's good for (sport) championships, why wouldn't it be good for deciding what processing batch the TDL will be included? How would you decide (and avoid without doubt any conflict of interest) which of the "6 figure range company" to give priority in regards with the processing moment of the "TDL request"?
It means that although the DNA will remain the same, how it is transcripted into proteins (and how often, and in reaction to what stimuli) changes. That is the purview of epigenetic study (the epi- prefix meaning over or above). Here's a useful link.
Thanks. So the correct title should be: "The DNA transcription into proteins changes with age"?
What exactly should stay the same? The "DNA/genes", "the changes (which themselves modify with age) - thus the DNA/genes are actually expected to change, but always in a given way" or the "modification of the changes"?
Errr... what!!!? Exactly my point: what the hell means "DNA modifications change with age" in the context of "the sequence of our DNA, which makes up our genes, remains the same"?
And I don't see what this has to do with the financial crisis at all.
The insurance/reinsurance and CDO schemes in finance resembles "fail-over redundancy activation" in the cloud. Enough complexity and nobody can predict what can happen until it actually happens - see cascading failure
we live in an age where information is distributed, even if statistical. (hell I made a fake Facebook account and somehow they found my mom, and she is no where close to me) a meltdown of information can't happen unless there is a world wide melt down of power. we have backups, but also ways of statistically restoring those backups.
Redundancy helps but it is not bullet-proof. A good chunk of it is the "topology" in which this redundancy is engaged in events of failure.(e.g. we had cascading blackouts in the past even if the energy network had enough total power to serve all consumers)
PM - doing the things right: planned and controlled, implying measurements, decisions mostly based on numbers, the goals of the project are very well defined.
Leadership - doing the right things. Infusing "vision" into the project and being able to "sell" that vision to stakeholders, picking the means and adjusting the priorities based on the team (capabilities, their state at any given time, etc.)
Note: I'm not saying the same person cannot do both in the same time. But based on the confusion I'm seeing in your post between the two and the emphasis on PM, I'm inclined to think you may have a deficit in regards with leadership. (I certainly may be wrong.)
BTW, one thing I noticed in regards with a "exclusively PM attitude persons": they speak about their team members in terms of "resources"; if anyone in the team gets named, it's for giving a name point to a "resource contention" or blame for the delays in the project. They also use "project goals" most of the time and for them the "project vision" is a blah-blah paragraph of the "project plan" document; as such, they also hate to switch between approaches in the middle of the project, even if mandated by unforeseen circumstances (chosen technology doesn't actually support the vision) or opportunities to add something better to the outcome of the project.
But perhaps that's because I don't go out of my way to wear baggy pants with the waist at my ankles, I don't wear a straight-brimmed baseball hat with the price tag still on it, I don't drive around blaring hip hop or rap music, I don't choose to talk like I'm mentally disabled, and I don't partake in crime.
Many of the people who whine and moan about being targeted by the police merely need to clean up their acts. If they don't act like criminals, and act civilized instead, then they won't raise the suspicion of the police and wouldn't be stopped. Yes, it's that simple.
Gosh, this is a day I'm obtuse: you say that people who wear baggy pants and straight-brimmed baseball hats, driving around... (etc... up to and excluding the partake in crime)... are, it's that simple, actually performing dirty down acts (which need to be cleaned up) and are most likely to commit crimes?
'Cause if that's what you are saying, then the application the TFA mentions comes not a moment too early: I imagine that at least the ones that are not that likely to be criminals would be happier to have their presumption of innocence and maybe their liberty/health/sanity guarded (as much as possible) by some evidence against potential abuses (why would I trust better a cop, even if/when working in the same ghetto?)
"Hmmm... there's noone watching... for the sake of you energy bills, I'll be shutting myself off."
If you want privacy, visit our accredited psychologists and buy the set of masks most suitable with you and your family members' personality, we'd be happy to quickly recognize your character with less computational effort.
...Oh wait, other than inventing computers, the internet, and the funding, research, basis and advancement of every technology your using right now, they should just "code their own shit".
You mean... the military invented the wine I'm drinking or the glass I'm using right now?
Somehow, ah don' believe you... but y'know wot?... jus' you waait-acouple o' glasses moar an' (hips... pardon me)... maaaybe I'll fiiiind'you riiight... cheers
All you have to do to comply with the license is include a copy of the source code with each device. If you put it on a TF card and attach that to the explosive, no problem:)
Hmmmm... I think I'd like a dud, please.
This reminds me of an old joke: what did the irish man think when he learned a nuclear bomb cost millions to build? "I hope they'll drop one in my backyard; either way, I'll have enough money for whiskey my entire life"
Slashdot Mirror
I think you - and the spammer - don't know that the links in comments are no-follow links.
I didn't know. Let me check.
Ooops, the way I understand nofollow, these type of links are meant to have the rel="nofollow" attribute. Now (using Chrome), if I right-click/"Inspect element" on such a link, I don't see the "rel" attribute being defined (neither in the element's text representation, nor in the "Properties" of the "HTMLAnchorElement") - so I suspect that Google's crawler won't see it either.
Are you absolutely sure that what you know is currently accurate? Admitting that the past has seen /. using the nofollow approach, are you absolutely sure that /. didn't silently drop it - e.g. to increase their chances of being seen a "preferred source of ad click-throughs"?
In actuality this will fuck up the SEO from this scam artist who wrote MYCleanPC.com and counters his slimy spamming advertising MyCleanPC.
If everyone here on slashdot points to other disgusting sites for MyCleanPC, then people searching for malware virus removal with MyCleanPC will have an awful surprise! :-)
In actuality this will fuck up the SEO from this scam artist who wrote MYCleanPC.com and counters his slimy spamming advertising MyCleanPC.
If everyone here on slashdot points to other disgusting sites for MyCleanPC, then people searching for malware virus removal with MyCleanPC will have an awful surprise! :-)
<grin>As for the Matrix, I wouldn't worry that much of the implant itself if releases under AGPL v3</grin>
He got an A in Chem. E. but failed Logic 101. A -> B does not mean that !A -> !B (A = Theresa has slept with him, B = there has previously been a cold night in hell).
It didn't occur to you that "time to call" could mean "Let's give it a try, now that the restriction is lifted", did it?
(if you are so geeky that cannot grasp the real life, here's the explanation in formal logic: A->B means !B->!A. Since !B is now F, if you go back to your Logic 101 and check the truth table for implication, you'll discover A can be now in either T/F and the !B->!A is still T. It means either A and !A are both now possible without contradicting the original A->B rule. At this stage, somebody with more that contemplative spirit would let the formal logic aside and try the truth value of the desirable choice by other means).
I am actually waiting for a call from the red guy complaining that it's getting mighty cold.
Yippee!... Time to call Theresa Manyan.
But no (i)nvidia which, I reckon, doesn't like to unleash the next era of computing innovation </grin>
If the "drawing ire over batching by punch the monkey" is real, it should have happened as early as March 30 this year, when the notification about "digital archery" was made public by ICANN.
What you don't want to do, is leave the impression that this is just a joke for you and let your customers play (rather silly) games for it (like ican did).
Ah, BTW, this wasn't new and shouldn't take the applicants by surprise: visit the "Batching information" page, scroll to the bottom and read the date for the "Update on New gTLD Batching"
(spoiler: it reads "Mar 30 2012". If you follow the link, you'll discover that a video was made available early April this year).
How was that silly again?
There are three options that come to mind:
1) First come, first serve (though this requires that you don't mess up the registration process) (fair, if done right)
Not different from "archery", just at an earlier stage: assuming that you want to be absolutely fair, you advertise the "T-zero for application lodging" and it's up to the applicants to hit as close as possible that moment (even harder than the current approach, since any application lodged before T0 should be discarded).
2) Highest Bidder (profitable)
3. This Corporation is a nonprofit public benefit corporation and is not organized for the private gain of any person.
3) Lottery / Random process (fair)
The third requires an audit/verification process to prove it was truly random, but it's not that difficult to do. If done right, this is the fairest option.
Why develop a "random generator system" that need to be audited, instead of putting "the faith of their application into the applicants' own hands" (by "digital archery")?
What you don't want to do, is leave the impression that this is just a joke for you and let your customers play (rather silly) games for it (like ican did).
Why does this appear to you as "silly"? (because it was you to rally on the "rather silly... as ican did" accusation).
I remember that, when generating a private/public key pair, some applications asked me to type something/anything at the keyboard: doesn't matter what, only the key-press timing info was used in seeding the RandGen. Now, maybe because I'm closer to an engineer mindset, but I didn't consider the request as "silly"... on the contrary.
If a coin toss at the start of a game (make if finale) in a championship is good enough to decide which of the teams/players will start, why would not "digital archery" be good enough in this case as well?
How else ICANN could be appear (and actually be) impartial/non-biased? Even more so because it does rely on the actual "players" to "toss their own coin", thus eliminating any doubt about "rigged equipment" from establishing "random winners"?
But if you are talking about business in the 6 figure range something a little more sophisticated should be used. Unless of course you want to look like a bunch of script kiddies far out of their league.
1. (Hey! I'm just kidding here) why would engineers try to abstain making fun of "businesses in the 6 figure range"?
2. I'm developing now a "Resource scheduler" for a dept that have more booking request than resources to allocate.
After going-back-an-forth in the search for a "fair solution" in establishing the priorities, the management decided that the only way to make it "fair" is to record all the booking request and, at the end of the week, run a "lottery" for the allocation schedule the next week.
My point: sometimes the only fair allocation/prioritization algorithm is to let the chance decide - if it's good for (sport) championships, why wouldn't it be good for deciding what processing batch the TDL will be included?
How would you decide (and avoid without doubt any conflict of interest) which of the "6 figure range company" to give priority in regards with the processing moment of the "TDL request"?
It means that although the DNA will remain the same, how it is transcripted into proteins (and how often, and in reaction to what stimuli) changes. That is the purview of epigenetic study (the epi- prefix meaning over or above). Here's a useful link.
Thanks. So the correct title should be: "The DNA transcription into proteins changes with age"?
What exactly should stay the same? The "DNA/genes", "the changes (which themselves modify with age) - thus the DNA/genes are actually expected to change, but always in a given way" or the "modification of the changes"?
Errr... what!!!? Exactly my point: what the hell means "DNA modifications change with age" in the context of "the sequence of our DNA, which makes up our genes, remains the same"?
And I don't see what this has to do with the financial crisis at all.
The insurance/reinsurance and CDO schemes in finance resembles "fail-over redundancy activation" in the cloud. Enough complexity and nobody can predict what can happen until it actually happens - see cascading failure
we live in an age where information is distributed, even if statistical. (hell I made a fake Facebook account and somehow they found my mom, and she is no where close to me) a meltdown of information can't happen unless there is a world wide melt down of power. we have backups, but also ways of statistically restoring those backups.
Redundancy helps but it is not bullet-proof. A good chunk of it is the "topology" in which this redundancy is engaged in events of failure.(e.g. we had cascading blackouts in the past even if the energy network had enough total power to serve all consumers)
Have a look on cascading failures.
You'd think someone would have done it by now, in case it crashes, but I can't find any record of anyone doing it.
Heh... the real think crashed long ago, you are using now the backup.
Leadership - doing the right things. Infusing "vision" into the project and being able to "sell" that vision to stakeholders, picking the means and adjusting the priorities based on the team (capabilities, their state at any given time, etc.)
Note: I'm not saying the same person cannot do both in the same time. But based on the confusion I'm seeing in your post between the two and the emphasis on PM, I'm inclined to think you may have a deficit in regards with leadership. (I certainly may be wrong.)
BTW, one thing I noticed in regards with a "exclusively PM attitude persons": they speak about their team members in terms of "resources"; if anyone in the team gets named, it's for giving a name point to a "resource contention" or blame for the delays in the project.
They also use "project goals" most of the time and for them the "project vision" is a blah-blah paragraph of the "project plan" document; as such, they also hate to switch between approaches in the middle of the project, even if mandated by unforeseen circumstances (chosen technology doesn't actually support the vision) or opportunities to add something better to the outcome of the project.
Hitachi TM 3000
Phenom G2 SEM
LVEM5 TEM SEM
Prices around 40-50k... postpone buying a new bmw and get one of those instead.
I imagine no worse than peeling a roll of sticky tape... will they ban these evil inventions as well?
But perhaps that's because I don't go out of my way to wear baggy pants with the waist at my ankles, I don't wear a straight-brimmed baseball hat with the price tag still on it, I don't drive around blaring hip hop or rap music, I don't choose to talk like I'm mentally disabled, and I don't partake in crime.
Many of the people who whine and moan about being targeted by the police merely need to clean up their acts. If they don't act like criminals, and act civilized instead, then they won't raise the suspicion of the police and wouldn't be stopped. Yes, it's that simple.
Gosh, this is a day I'm obtuse: you say that people who wear baggy pants and straight-brimmed baseball hats, driving around... (etc... up to and excluding the partake in crime)... are, it's that simple, actually performing dirty down acts (which need to be cleaned up) and are most likely to commit crimes?
'Cause if that's what you are saying, then the application the TFA mentions comes not a moment too early: I imagine that at least the ones that are not that likely to be criminals would be happier to have their presumption of innocence and maybe their liberty/health/sanity guarded (as much as possible) by some evidence against potential abuses (why would I trust better a cop, even if/when working in the same ghetto?)
If you want privacy, visit our accredited psychologists and buy the set of masks most suitable with you and your family members' personality, we'd be happy to quickly recognize your character with less computational effort.
... you're assuming that you'll actually bother to look through all the code eventually or that you'll know the security holes when you see them.
Aaahhh... but there's a solution for that... release your source code in open source. You know... "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow"?
...Oh wait, other than inventing computers, the internet, and the funding, research, basis and advancement of every technology your using right now, they should just "code their own shit".
You mean... the military invented the wine I'm drinking or the glass I'm using right now?
Somehow, ah don' believe you... but y'know wot?... jus' you waait-acouple o' glasses moar an' (hips... pardon me)... maaaybe I'll fiiiind'you riiight... cheers
All you have to do to comply with the license is include a copy of the source code with each device. If you put it on a TF card and attach that to the explosive, no problem :)
Hmmmm... I think I'd like a dud, please.
This reminds me of an old joke: what did the irish man think when he learned a nuclear bomb cost millions to build? "I hope they'll drop one in my backyard; either way, I'll have enough money for whiskey my entire life"