The main reason that he absolutely must get a lawyer isn't even the employment related problems. He's been accused of a crime. They may or may not bring charges, but he needs to talk to a lawyer sooner rather than later.
You are obviously correct in that California's power system was never deregulated. It was re-regulated in a manner that all the politicians and relevant corporate stooges called "deregulation." And that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Of course, so long as my power company can force me to give them an easement to put power lines on my property, they will not be, technically, deregulated. So long as they can use public resources, they will not be, technically, deregulated.
That suggests to me that it is completely impossible (due to political reality or physical reality is unimportant) for the US to actually deregulate it's power industry. All we will ever get is "re-regulation." Unfortunately, all the politicians (liberal & conservative alike) called this "deregulation." All the media called it "deregulation." All the think-tanks called it "deregulation." If the public doesn't have any way to know about the true consequences of legislation that's this complex... we'll get fucked every time.
I guess my point is... ok, no point. Still. What do you think we should do about the power industry? If you want *real* deregulation, then you're going to have to explain how the hell you'd define *real* deregulation. And before you ever passed your law, you'd get a bunch of politicians and corporations in there fucking things up.
The one source that I want someone to dig up for me is this: a pre-shortage, pre-"deregulation" article suggesting that the California "deregulation" legislation was the wrong kind of deregulation. Then I'll know who to follow for the right kind of local political coverage for the rest of my life.
If you can find that, I'll kiss you on the mouth. (You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer.)
There are several potential goals for random number generators. One is uniform distribution (coin toss could generate 1,1,1,1,1 just as likely as 0,1,1,0,1) and the other is uncompressability. In my (intro) math for comp sci class, they defined "random number" to mean a number is "impossible to compress and store in a smaller amount of space than the number itself."
Please, anyone, feel free to correct me. I took comp sci because I was bad at math.
...why would a developer talk about features that aren't in the final game and is this actually false advertising?
I will respond to the latter question first by saying no, this is not false advertising, it's marketing.
Right. You know... untrue marketing. And that's completely different from false advertising. It's different most of all in that one is illegal fraud, and the other is industry standard practice.
If I understand correctly, IOKit allows Mac OS X to load and unload drivers without rebooting, and to allow device drivers to crash and burn without taking down the OS. Of course, if your video driver dies... what does it matter. But you get the idea. That's the point of a microkernel, right? (Yes, yes, I know, Mac OS X isn't a true microkernel OS.)
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be totally unsurprised.
Sure, we might be able to give you some interesting technical advice, but that will have absolutely nothing to do with your situation, which is entirely legal in nature.
Legal issue -> Lawyer Nerd issue -> Slashdot
Is this primarily a nerd issue? NO! Call a lawyer.
I just disagree that the analog hole counts as "very difficult".
If it's a really really long email, and retyping it doesn't make sense, then my digital camera makes sense. It's just returned us to wherever we were before computers. That's fine for stuff like political speech/whistleblowing/leaks/etc.
I have all kinds of problems with TCPA, but this isn't one of them.
Note: The information transmitted in this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, reproduction, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited.
What is this all about? They are trying to hide the fact that they are sending out these letters?
That's all standard boilerplate that is included in most any legally confidential communications. My mom is a shrink, and every fax she sends contains that text. It doesn't restrict the actions of the intended recipient. My mom's clients can still show the fax to anyone they please. It's so that if my mom sends it to a client, and someone else picks it up out of the fax machine, they aren't supposed to give it to all their friends. It's weak juju to indemnify the sender of lapses in confidentiality.
If they wanted to stop the intended recipient from spreading the message around... they couldn't, but they'd be much more threatening.
I knew a dude (his daughter was in my high school) who had a little start up with some kind of database software. I have no idea what the innovation was, but they were convinced that they would take the enterprise DB world by storm. (This is where I should note that I can't recall the name of the company.) He had several coders on staff, but when Oracle finished stringing him along and his tech didn't sell to any of the big players, he fired everyone and kept it on the back burner, working on it himself.
Eventually, Oracle bought him & his code (According to his daughter's non-technical understanding, they *needed* his code.) and he signed on as an Oracle VP. Another girl at my highschool had a dad who was a VP at Oracle, and I remembered him & many other VPs getting axed, so I knew that there was some serious churn in the upper ranks. Thus, I was unshocked when Oracle stiffed him for his code (dunno if they got away with it or he sued) and fired him.
Last I heard was before the bubble burst, and he was doing coding for some dot com, and enjoying it.
All this is filtered through several different types of bias (My own included. Had a crush on his daughter.) but I think it's close to the truth. He had some really lean years after he shrank his company, because despite saving up, he went a lot longer without selling his code than he ever expected.
Tumbleweed's comment notwithstanding, yes, this is a weird IEism. It happens all the time. Click back, and your form is unfilled out. I've lost a big essay in a take-home exam due to this before. It blows.
Firewalls are great. Virus scanning on email is important too. That still hasn't stopped our users from going to their personal webmail, downloading an attachment, unzipping it, running it, clicking "yes" to install it, and hitting 14 other machines with wormy goodness.
Sure, we never got Code Red. Morons are just as effective.
Yes, it would likely be very difficult, but Google might have done some of the hard work already. Remember their Google Labs tool that, given a few sample items, would return a list of other things in that category?
If you gave it: apple pear orange
It would return: grape cherry strawberry kiwi etc.
If you gave it: apple dell compaq
It would return gateway hp hewlett-packard ibm etc
So, if Google's tool could also be used to identify the different meanings that each word has, then maybe they could give you a few links for each meaning. Of course, many search items might not be this easy to categorize. We haven't yet proven that your algorithm is easy, and we also haven't proven that it would be useful for many types of searches.
In fact, color/colour, humor/humour, etc. all seem to show American English winning 4 to 1.
Google samples the Internet, which is still massively dominated by the US. For instance, "USA" has twice the number of hits as "China". You can't extrapolate much in the real world from that.
Huh. I can think of another reason that "USA" might be less common than "China":
Try reading it and sorting out what is real from the crap (there is a fair bit of both in there) I think that you will find it worth the time. (unless you couldn't care less about understanding reality)
No, that's the whole point. I've read enough and done enough introspection (and read this review) and I can tell that this whole book is either hooey or intuitively obvious. I'll stick to books that show me new things about reality, rather than just the things I figured out for myself when I was in fifth grade staying up late at slumber parties talking about philosophy.
mutter mutter pop psychology bull crap mutter mutter.
If we're going to discuss the subject, I should point out that most of these psychological scale type thingies measure introversion-extroversion in two arenas: problem solving and personality. I'm very much an extrovert, in terms of my personality, but I'm an introverted problem solver.
Both of these characteristics have changed over time, so I don't see how it's so interesting.
I think these things say only slightly more about me than my astrological sign. I get the feeling that many of these pop psychology categorizer folks believe in astrology, too, though, so... at least there's one thing we can all agree on.
I'm not sure if that came out right. Anyway, it's hooey.
Omni Group isn't exactly "the public" when it comes to NSprogramming. There may be features that they would like to implement that require reaching in and grabbing stuff inside WebCore and JavaScriptCore. They wouldn't have that option with WebKit.
I don't see why this would necessarily give rise to compatibility problems or bugs. The Safari and KHTML groups should keep both WebKit and WebCore updated just fine.
Has anybody used the product? Is it the vast improvement that we all expected?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, in any case, tetrachromats rejoice.
Right. Both of them are delirious.
The main reason that he absolutely must get a lawyer isn't even the employment related problems. He's been accused of a crime. They may or may not bring charges, but he needs to talk to a lawyer sooner rather than later.
Fraud. They still committed fraud, no matter what new regulations they were exploiting.
You are obviously correct in that California's power system was never deregulated. It was re-regulated in a manner that all the politicians and relevant corporate stooges called "deregulation." And that doesn't necessarily make it so.
Of course, so long as my power company can force me to give them an easement to put power lines on my property, they will not be, technically, deregulated. So long as they can use public resources, they will not be, technically, deregulated.
That suggests to me that it is completely impossible (due to political reality or physical reality is unimportant) for the US to actually deregulate it's power industry. All we will ever get is "re-regulation." Unfortunately, all the politicians (liberal & conservative alike) called this "deregulation." All the media called it "deregulation." All the think-tanks called it "deregulation." If the public doesn't have any way to know about the true consequences of legislation that's this complex... we'll get fucked every time.
I guess my point is... ok, no point. Still. What do you think we should do about the power industry? If you want *real* deregulation, then you're going to have to explain how the hell you'd define *real* deregulation. And before you ever passed your law, you'd get a bunch of politicians and corporations in there fucking things up.
The one source that I want someone to dig up for me is this: a pre-shortage, pre-"deregulation" article suggesting that the California "deregulation" legislation was the wrong kind of deregulation. Then I'll know who to follow for the right kind of local political coverage for the rest of my life.
If you can find that, I'll kiss you on the mouth. (You can kiss my girlfriend if you'd prefer.)
There are several potential goals for random number generators. One is uniform distribution (coin toss could generate 1,1,1,1,1 just as likely as 0,1,1,0,1) and the other is uncompressability. In my (intro) math for comp sci class, they defined "random number" to mean a number is "impossible to compress and store in a smaller amount of space than the number itself."
Please, anyone, feel free to correct me. I took comp sci because I was bad at math.
P.S. Yes, I'm joking about that last part.
...why would a developer talk about features that aren't in the final game and is this actually false advertising?
I will respond to the latter question first by saying no, this is not false advertising, it's marketing.
Right. You know... untrue marketing. And that's completely different from false advertising. It's different most of all in that one is illegal fraud, and the other is industry standard practice.
And in case of emergencies you can rip it off your monitor and use it as an ad hoc prophylactic, if your computer prowess makes visiting chicks hot.
As my dad discovered... no, no you cannot.
I don't want to deal with colds and flus and lyme disease.
But for some reason you do want to deal with Lycanthropy? What, do you expect the game designers to anticipate your every whim? Jesus.
I submit:
my OS design
If I understand correctly, IOKit allows Mac OS X to load and unload drivers without rebooting, and to allow device drivers to crash and burn without taking down the OS. Of course, if your video driver dies... what does it matter. But you get the idea. That's the point of a microkernel, right? (Yes, yes, I know, Mac OS X isn't a true microkernel OS.)
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong. I'd be totally unsurprised.
Call a lawyer!
Sure, we might be able to give you some interesting technical advice, but that will have absolutely nothing to do with your situation, which is entirely legal in nature.
Legal issue -> Lawyer
Nerd issue -> Slashdot
Is this primarily a nerd issue? NO! Call a lawyer.
Call a lawyer? Call a lawyer. Call a lawyer.
No, you didn't miss anything.
I just disagree that the analog hole counts as "very difficult".
If it's a really really long email, and retyping it doesn't make sense, then my digital camera makes sense. It's just returned us to wherever we were before computers. That's fine for stuff like political speech/whistleblowing/leaks/etc.
I have all kinds of problems with TCPA, but this isn't one of them.
Well, that doesn't sound like the sequence of events that would lead to the coinage of the phrase "witch hunt."
Still, quite interesting.
No, not really.
The contents of a letter can *always* be copied by its intended recipient. No amount of content control methods will change that.
At least in the 1600's they got the witches right. Somewhat.
Uh. Hehe. Boy, the ACs get funnier every day.
He was kidding, right?
What is this all about? They are trying to hide the fact that they are sending out these letters?
That's all standard boilerplate that is included in most any legally confidential communications. My mom is a shrink, and every fax she sends contains that text. It doesn't restrict the actions of the intended recipient. My mom's clients can still show the fax to anyone they please. It's so that if my mom sends it to a client, and someone else picks it up out of the fax machine, they aren't supposed to give it to all their friends. It's weak juju to indemnify the sender of lapses in confidentiality.
If they wanted to stop the intended recipient from spreading the message around... they couldn't, but they'd be much more threatening.
I knew a dude (his daughter was in my high school) who had a little start up with some kind of database software. I have no idea what the innovation was, but they were convinced that they would take the enterprise DB world by storm. (This is where I should note that I can't recall the name of the company.) He had several coders on staff, but when Oracle finished stringing him along and his tech didn't sell to any of the big players, he fired everyone and kept it on the back burner, working on it himself.
Eventually, Oracle bought him & his code (According to his daughter's non-technical understanding, they *needed* his code.) and he signed on as an Oracle VP. Another girl at my highschool had a dad who was a VP at Oracle, and I remembered him & many other VPs getting axed, so I knew that there was some serious churn in the upper ranks. Thus, I was unshocked when Oracle stiffed him for his code (dunno if they got away with it or he sued) and fired him.
Last I heard was before the bubble burst, and he was doing coding for some dot com, and enjoying it.
All this is filtered through several different types of bias (My own included. Had a crush on his daughter.) but I think it's close to the truth. He had some really lean years after he shrank his company, because despite saving up, he went a lot longer without selling his code than he ever expected.
Tumbleweed's comment notwithstanding, yes, this is a weird IEism. It happens all the time. Click back, and your form is unfilled out. I've lost a big essay in a take-home exam due to this before. It blows.
So they should disallow the downloading of ZIP files?
(BTW, I'm not a sysadmin. I just work here.)
Firewalls are great. Virus scanning on email is important too. That still hasn't stopped our users from going to their personal webmail, downloading an attachment, unzipping it, running it, clicking "yes" to install it, and hitting 14 other machines with wormy goodness.
Sure, we never got Code Red. Morons are just as effective.
Yes, it would likely be very difficult, but Google might have done some of the hard work already. Remember their Google Labs tool that, given a few sample items, would return a list of other things in that category?
If you gave it:
apple
pear
orange
It would return:
grape
cherry
strawberry
kiwi
etc.
If you gave it:
apple
dell
compaq
It would return
gateway
hp
hewlett-packard
ibm
etc
So, if Google's tool could also be used to identify the different meanings that each word has, then maybe they could give you a few links for each meaning. Of course, many search items might not be this easy to categorize. We haven't yet proven that your algorithm is easy, and we also haven't proven that it would be useful for many types of searches.
I know I was supporting your point. I meant to be. I wasn't flaming. I was funny.
Huh. I can think of another reason that "USA" might be less common than "China":
That's the way we spell it, you $%&!# dolt.
Try reading it and sorting out what is real from the crap (there is a fair bit of both in there) I think that you will find it worth the time. (unless you couldn't care less about understanding reality)
No, that's the whole point. I've read enough and done enough introspection (and read this review) and I can tell that this whole book is either hooey or intuitively obvious. I'll stick to books that show me new things about reality, rather than just the things I figured out for myself when I was in fifth grade staying up late at slumber parties talking about philosophy.
mutter mutter pop psychology bull crap mutter mutter.
If we're going to discuss the subject, I should point out that most of these psychological scale type thingies measure introversion-extroversion in two arenas: problem solving and personality. I'm very much an extrovert, in terms of my personality, but I'm an introverted problem solver.
Both of these characteristics have changed over time, so I don't see how it's so interesting.
I think these things say only slightly more about me than my astrological sign. I get the feeling that many of these pop psychology categorizer folks believe in astrology, too, though, so... at least there's one thing we can all agree on.
I'm not sure if that came out right. Anyway, it's hooey.
Omni Group isn't exactly "the public" when it comes to NSprogramming. There may be features that they would like to implement that require reaching in and grabbing stuff inside WebCore and JavaScriptCore. They wouldn't have that option with WebKit.
I don't see why this would necessarily give rise to compatibility problems or bugs. The Safari and KHTML groups should keep both WebKit and WebCore updated just fine.
Has anybody used the product? Is it the vast improvement that we all expected?