They should create a new printer cartridge type that has a uniquely shaped locking tab made of about a half mm thick plastic, to secure the cartridge in place. Patent the shit out of the tab. To remove the cartridge from the printer after it has been locked in, you must break the tab off and dispose of it, much like you would dispose of a soda bottle cap. The printer should refuse to print if a cartridge is not recognized as locked in place.
If anyone tries to make compatible cartridges with a similar shaped tab (ie, the only shape that will fit their printers), they can be sued for patent infringement. Refilling an official cartridge that has already been used would also be futile because you cannot lock the cartridge back in place, and the printer will not print with an unsecured cartridge.
I'm assuming that you are speaking to me as if I were an employer, and if that were the case what you would stand to lose is your job. Of course, if that doesn't matter to you, then that's not really a big problem, It usually matters to most people though, so your situation is more of an outlier one.
And specialization doesn't mean you are irreplaceable as much as that there simply isn't much redundancy in the employee pool, and in some cases only one person being absent for any extended period means that the entire company falls behind schedule.
There's quite a substantial difference between a company not wanting to shell out additional money to hire a temp to do most of your work while you are on vacation than not being able to hire somebody to replace you if you quit or are fired.
That said, intentionally saying "yes" to the question "can you fix this in a crazy rush" when you actually had no intention of ever following through if they were to ever ask is at the very least deceptive, and I can't imagine how clueless your employer is to not realize that they hired someboody who could not be trusted.
8) The company is too cheap to hire a temp while you are on vacation to take up most the slack left by you not being there, so when you get back to work, you come back to a mountain of work that absolutely, positively, needs to be done ASAP, because the deadlines haven't changed since you went on vacation. This raises your stress levels to higher than they were before you felt you needed a vacation.
Assuming there is one, the version from 1995 does not predate the one from 1977, and if there isn't one, then the version from 1977 was already open source long ago.
The real answer is that you don't... in such a world, you would necessarily have to store your data on media that you can easily transport or else put it on a cloud service and use whatever device is available for you to access it at your destination.
Now any idiot can create a github account and start programming, with no idea how to design systems, call themselves a "developer", and get hired by a clueless "hiring manager" who granted the interview because his resume had the right buzz words on it.
... And then get themselves fired within only a few weeks of starting as soon as the CTO and programmer lead on that person's team quickly realize that the guy doesn't know jack shit. I've seen it happen. Obviously there's some cost to the company for doing this, not to mention the expense of continuing to evaluate others for the position, but the cost will be MUCH greater if an incompetent person is allowed to remain.
Though there's a C port of the original 1977 game in the BSD game package, and the original FORTRAN sources could be found if you knew where to dig, Crowther & Woods's final version -- Adventure 2.5 from 1995 -- has never been packaged for modern systems and distributed under an open-source license. Until now.
What world is this where 1995 is before 1977? Or is there some new, fangled definition of "first" that I've never heard of?
The professor says he feels sorry for one researcher who recently submitted a paper about how to treat sheath tumors, because "the journal has sent it to a dog to review."
Why? How bad was the dog's criticisms of the paper?
You mean like how it is already hard to read in the dark? Same difference, really. There's no inherent reason that you need something you are looking at to produce its own light.
Photons are photons, the only theoretical difference is that a CMYK display that depends on reflection instead of emission would work relative to the amount of light available so it a dark place they'd be dark and in a very bright place like in sunlight they'd be bright.
Which is an important distinction, since your pupils naturally expand or contract according to the amount of light available in your *ENTIRE* field of view, not just whatever from you are trying to necessarily consciously concentrate on reading or looking at.
If there is too little surrounding light, and reading an emissive display can be like reading while staring into a flashlight. You can turn down the brightness of the display, but at the cost of perceived contrast. While you would technically get the same lack of contrast if the same amount of light were hitting a reflective display, it seems that the brain is able to more easily accomodate for poor lighting conditions if one's entire surroundings reflect those conditions than it can if the lighting conditions come from just a small part of a person's field of view. I suspect this may be because of how the brain balances dependency on rods or cones for information depending on how much surrounding light is available, but not being an expert in this area, I cannot say for sure what the real cause is.
If there is too much surrounding light, an emissive display must produce more of its own light to have sufficient contrast to be perceived. This consumes more power, and in daylight conditions it can sometimes even be impossible for devices with limited power to generate enough illumination to create a usable display.
.... effectively shining flashlights into our eyes when we read computer screens and put some work into realizing a commercially viable cmyk display with decent resolution and refresh times on par with that of existing rgb displays.
Except that it isn't all they need to know... the fact that this computer beat the world's best Go player doesn't lessen the worth of the player or devalue China's reputation in the slightest. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the game of Go is sufficiently computable that it is possible to design software that will never lose to any human player. If the program can consistently beat the best player in the world, then its victories can probably be discounted as mere luck or caused by mistakes that the human player made, and the goal has been achieved. That the best player happens to be Chinese is superfluous to this, and while I understand that there can be some sense of national pride in a country having the world's best player at some sport or other event, this match doesn't even change that fact about their player. He is still the best player in the world, and until some other person beats him, that fact will remain. Politically, the outcome of this human vs computer match is actually entirely neutral, and I am greatly concerned that a government that would want to place such political significance on the results of a game such as this that they felt the need to censor it have a sufficiently misplaced set of priorities that will invariably be quite detrimental to their country.
The Trump administration wants federal agencies to be able to track, hack, or even destroy drones...
Okay, now I know that they *say* that they want to do this when a drone is posing a threat to public safety or to rescue operations, and that much is all very well and good. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt on this for just a minute here, and assume that was really all they were ever going to do and it wouldn't be abused.... Ignore for just a moment how unlikely you might think that is and just hear me out on this.
Even *IF* the government actually entirely abides by their proclaimed intentions to only use these mechanisms when it was truly necessary for the greater public good, this is still going to be a problem because, you see, if the federal agencies can do it then others with more outwardly nefarious intentions could also do it, using the exact same means... and while laws may exist against individuals doing such things, it might end up being rather hard to identify who is doing it.
I would think that such a situation would be far more problematic than the one that they are trying to alleviate by these proposed measures.
Well then you shouldn't visit most of Asia, all of the middle east, and a lot of Africa.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't... and for exactly the reasons that the other poster mentioned, above.
I find it unfortunate that the USA, which happens to be located only about a 30 minute drive south of where I am currently typing this, is now among those countries.
Of course, and the country that happens to win the most medals or the most gold medals in a given Olympic year often gets bragging rights for a few days following the Olympics too... but such bragging is meant only in the spirit of sportsmanship, not to make those that didn't win feel like they have any less worth than they did before the competition.
And similarly, this match was not to prove that the Chinese Go player couldn't win, but to prove that it is possible to design a program that could always win at the game. If it can beat the best there is, then at least in theory, it should be able to always win a game with anyone. That's all that this was about.... not some sort of political grandstand that was ever meant to make China or its numerous other contributions to the world mean any less to anyone than they already do, and I find it pretty sad that apparently some from China would think that enough that they were willing to resort to censorship over it.
But if one are basing so much of their national pride on who plays a *GAME* better than anyone else, then this is what is unfortunate, because China ought to have plenty of things to be proud of, and the notion that they would find a computer beating their best Go player somehow devaluing to them as a nation speaks tons about a misplaced sense of priorities that can't possibly do their population any good.
How I got "requires an intent connection to function, ever", is from this:
DJI drones... won't be able to fly to their full potential or beam back footage if their owners don't sign up next week
That is, if an unregistered device works right now, then what could the company do to make the device stop working later, unless it needed internet connectivity to function in the first place?
Because I cannot think of any way other than requiring connectivity to operate that this could ever actually be enforced. What if you want to operate it while camping where you have no connectivity in the first place?
Well guess what? Unless you're your own ISP, with your own connection directly to a totally neutral backbone, you're not in control of ANYTHING you're doing. They can do man-in-the-middle attacks. They can sift through your email. You can try to use Tor or a VPN, and they can write Terms of Service that say you're not allowed and disconnect you if you don't comply. Left to their own devices these companies will do whatever it is they want to do that makes them the most money from the most revenue streams, and they don't give a flying fuck about you, your rights, your privacy, or anything else.
That is, you see, my entire point. Your so-called privacy is an illusion that is only afforded by whatever level of disinterest that others might have in seeing what you are doing.
I'm going to be blunt with you, for your own good: That is a cowards' attitude. It is within the power of EVERY CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to stand up for what's right and speak out against what's wrong, and DEMAND that your will, the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, be done.
What makes any one person's values who is demanding respect for their privacy from others under threat of legal consequences any better than a dictator who is also demanding what others do, also on pain of prosecution... bearing in mind that again, this privacy is entirely illusory to begin with?
I didn't say I didn't care.... I only said that I recognize that any appearance of online privacy one might find only exists because one might not be noteworthy enough to pay attention to in the first place.
Obviously it is ideal if people do not pay attention to matters that are none of their business, but I can't help what other people do, I can only control my own thoughts and actions and trying to dictate those of others just so that I might be able to feel more secure around them is just so much wasted energy.... effort is better spent on making sure that when you are doing something you want kept private, you have instituted protections of either your own design or choosing that will obscure your activities enough that those who might have otherwise intended to pry will not be aware enough of what you are doing to bother even trying to pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Playing devils advocate here...
They should create a new printer cartridge type that has a uniquely shaped locking tab made of about a half mm thick plastic, to secure the cartridge in place. Patent the shit out of the tab. To remove the cartridge from the printer after it has been locked in, you must break the tab off and dispose of it, much like you would dispose of a soda bottle cap. The printer should refuse to print if a cartridge is not recognized as locked in place.
If anyone tries to make compatible cartridges with a similar shaped tab (ie, the only shape that will fit their printers), they can be sued for patent infringement. Refilling an official cartridge that has already been used would also be futile because you cannot lock the cartridge back in place, and the printer will not print with an unsecured cartridge.
I'm assuming that you are speaking to me as if I were an employer, and if that were the case what you would stand to lose is your job. Of course, if that doesn't matter to you, then that's not really a big problem, It usually matters to most people though, so your situation is more of an outlier one.
And specialization doesn't mean you are irreplaceable as much as that there simply isn't much redundancy in the employee pool, and in some cases only one person being absent for any extended period means that the entire company falls behind schedule.
There's quite a substantial difference between a company not wanting to shell out additional money to hire a temp to do most of your work while you are on vacation than not being able to hire somebody to replace you if you quit or are fired.
That said, intentionally saying "yes" to the question "can you fix this in a crazy rush" when you actually had no intention of ever following through if they were to ever ask is at the very least deceptive, and I can't imagine how clueless your employer is to not realize that they hired someboody who could not be trusted.
Not if your work involves anything that is on unchanging deadlines, regardless if you go on vacation.
You missed this one:
8) The company is too cheap to hire a temp while you are on vacation to take up most the slack left by you not being there, so when you get back to work, you come back to a mountain of work that absolutely, positively, needs to be done ASAP, because the deadlines haven't changed since you went on vacation. This raises your stress levels to higher than they were before you felt you needed a vacation.
Would that mean that you are prohibited from vacationing in areas where you would not be reachable remotely, eg, camping in the mountains?
Assuming there is one, the version from 1995 does not predate the one from 1977, and if there isn't one, then the version from 1977 was already open source long ago.
You realize that only excludes about eleven or twelve of them, right?
The real answer is that you don't... in such a world, you would necessarily have to store your data on media that you can easily transport or else put it on a cloud service and use whatever device is available for you to access it at your destination.
Wait.... I think I saw that TV show... from 2014 as I recall.
... And then get themselves fired within only a few weeks of starting as soon as the CTO and programmer lead on that person's team quickly realize that the guy doesn't know jack shit. I've seen it happen. Obviously there's some cost to the company for doing this, not to mention the expense of continuing to evaluate others for the position, but the cost will be MUCH greater if an incompetent person is allowed to remain.
What world is this where 1995 is before 1977? Or is there some new, fangled definition of "first" that I've never heard of?
Why? How bad was the dog's criticisms of the paper?
You mean like how it is already hard to read in the dark? Same difference, really. There's no inherent reason that you need something you are looking at to produce its own light.
Which is an important distinction, since your pupils naturally expand or contract according to the amount of light available in your *ENTIRE* field of view, not just whatever from you are trying to necessarily consciously concentrate on reading or looking at.
If there is too little surrounding light, and reading an emissive display can be like reading while staring into a flashlight. You can turn down the brightness of the display, but at the cost of perceived contrast. While you would technically get the same lack of contrast if the same amount of light were hitting a reflective display, it seems that the brain is able to more easily accomodate for poor lighting conditions if one's entire surroundings reflect those conditions than it can if the lighting conditions come from just a small part of a person's field of view. I suspect this may be because of how the brain balances dependency on rods or cones for information depending on how much surrounding light is available, but not being an expert in this area, I cannot say for sure what the real cause is.
If there is too much surrounding light, an emissive display must produce more of its own light to have sufficient contrast to be perceived. This consumes more power, and in daylight conditions it can sometimes even be impossible for devices with limited power to generate enough illumination to create a usable display.
Reflective displays could solve both issues.
.... effectively shining flashlights into our eyes when we read computer screens and put some work into realizing a commercially viable cmyk display with decent resolution and refresh times on par with that of existing rgb displays.
Except that it isn't all they need to know... the fact that this computer beat the world's best Go player doesn't lessen the worth of the player or devalue China's reputation in the slightest. The point of the exercise was to demonstrate that the game of Go is sufficiently computable that it is possible to design software that will never lose to any human player. If the program can consistently beat the best player in the world, then its victories can probably be discounted as mere luck or caused by mistakes that the human player made, and the goal has been achieved. That the best player happens to be Chinese is superfluous to this, and while I understand that there can be some sense of national pride in a country having the world's best player at some sport or other event, this match doesn't even change that fact about their player. He is still the best player in the world, and until some other person beats him, that fact will remain. Politically, the outcome of this human vs computer match is actually entirely neutral, and I am greatly concerned that a government that would want to place such political significance on the results of a game such as this that they felt the need to censor it have a sufficiently misplaced set of priorities that will invariably be quite detrimental to their country.
Okay, now I know that they *say* that they want to do this when a drone is posing a threat to public safety or to rescue operations, and that much is all very well and good. So let's give them the benefit of the doubt on this for just a minute here, and assume that was really all they were ever going to do and it wouldn't be abused.... Ignore for just a moment how unlikely you might think that is and just hear me out on this.
Even *IF* the government actually entirely abides by their proclaimed intentions to only use these mechanisms when it was truly necessary for the greater public good, this is still going to be a problem because, you see, if the federal agencies can do it then others with more outwardly nefarious intentions could also do it, using the exact same means... and while laws may exist against individuals doing such things, it might end up being rather hard to identify who is doing it.
I would think that such a situation would be far more problematic than the one that they are trying to alleviate by these proposed measures.
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't... and for exactly the reasons that the other poster mentioned, above.
I find it unfortunate that the USA, which happens to be located only about a 30 minute drive south of where I am currently typing this, is now among those countries.
Of course, and the country that happens to win the most medals or the most gold medals in a given Olympic year often gets bragging rights for a few days following the Olympics too... but such bragging is meant only in the spirit of sportsmanship, not to make those that didn't win feel like they have any less worth than they did before the competition.
And similarly, this match was not to prove that the Chinese Go player couldn't win, but to prove that it is possible to design a program that could always win at the game. If it can beat the best there is, then at least in theory, it should be able to always win a game with anyone. That's all that this was about.... not some sort of political grandstand that was ever meant to make China or its numerous other contributions to the world mean any less to anyone than they already do, and I find it pretty sad that apparently some from China would think that enough that they were willing to resort to censorship over it.
But if one are basing so much of their national pride on who plays a *GAME* better than anyone else, then this is what is unfortunate, because China ought to have plenty of things to be proud of, and the notion that they would find a computer beating their best Go player somehow devaluing to them as a nation speaks tons about a misplaced sense of priorities that can't possibly do their population any good.
That is, if an unregistered device works right now, then what could the company do to make the device stop working later, unless it needed internet connectivity to function in the first place?
Because I cannot think of any way other than requiring connectivity to operate that this could ever actually be enforced. What if you want to operate it while camping where you have no connectivity in the first place?
That is, you see, my entire point. Your so-called privacy is an illusion that is only afforded by whatever level of disinterest that others might have in seeing what you are doing.
What makes any one person's values who is demanding respect for their privacy from others under threat of legal consequences any better than a dictator who is also demanding what others do, also on pain of prosecution... bearing in mind that again, this privacy is entirely illusory to begin with?
As I don't really have anything to sell, I would think that the statement that you won't buy from me is kind of a tautology.
I didn't say I didn't care.... I only said that I recognize that any appearance of online privacy one might find only exists because one might not be noteworthy enough to pay attention to in the first place.
Obviously it is ideal if people do not pay attention to matters that are none of their business, but I can't help what other people do, I can only control my own thoughts and actions and trying to dictate those of others just so that I might be able to feel more secure around them is just so much wasted energy.... effort is better spent on making sure that when you are doing something you want kept private, you have instituted protections of either your own design or choosing that will obscure your activities enough that those who might have otherwise intended to pry will not be aware enough of what you are doing to bother even trying to pay attention.