I didn't miss it at all. I fully appreciate that people who have been exposed to public attention, right or wrong, desire and even should expect a right to rebuild their life. Barbara Streisand similarly should expect privacy and not have her address (home) posted for all the world to see. However, what her predicament showed us is that suing to keep something private backfires. It's exactly analogous to this alleged sex offender's plight.
It is not an oxymoron. Someone with absolute power need not be a coward, but the administrators (in these examples) are proven cowards because they choose to stifle free speech rather than argue for it, however distasteful the free speech may be.
It's a combination of a horrible summary and horrible article. Maybe we can take the horrible article from IBT with a grain of salt because they don't purport to sell themselves as technical experts, but NeonBible and timothy should have done a better job. The real problem is that too many summaries on/. just copy some text from the article without actually summarizing it to (a) point out the technical relevance, (b) highlight the salient technical details, or (c) provide a decent initial (unbiased) comment.
I don't agree. This link gives you a better idea of what type of course it will likely be. Seems to be fairly reasonable as a computer science curriculum. I can tell you from personal experience that a real master's degree in computer science from a major university is not very useful anyway. I have yet to find a practical application of Rice's Theorem in my day job.
I remember a guy who blamed the NSA for him defrauding all the other shareholders. "Qwest is doing great, but just ignore the fact that I'm selling tens of millions of dollars in stock just before everything tanks!" Any executive in a company who sells stock while still working there needs to be investigated very thoroughly, especially if that company subsequently tanks without warning. Qwest, if you recall, had to restate BILLIONS in sales (there are more links if you care to search).
I think the method is a very strongly motivated post-purchase questionnaire type of thing. Basically, they pay something like a $25 gift card, wherein at least one of the questions helps link the purchase to the ad that motivated it. I think they must get enough responses from such measures to justify it.
This isn't about right or wrong. There's no logical fallacy here. This is simply about whether or not we even want to hear what he has to say, based on how he's saying it. You can choose on your own.
Yeah, so the guy talks like an arrogant twat, is he wrong?
Yes, goddamn it, he's wrong to talk like an arrogant twat. Is his proposal or desire wrong? I don't think enough of us give a shit enough to listen to his arrogant twatness to find out. The analogy to big, fat, ugly is not a good one.
Seems very much like the same guy. He posted chiptune on his site and also had some past underhanded entries there. Presumably, he's just not updating (or updated) for this last entry.
They will continue to blackmail you. Why wouldn't they when so successful the first time? It's not like they're trustworthy or anything. If you're stupid enough to get involved with Ashley Madison in the first place, then just fess up to your wife and family and deal with the consequences. But, in the end, most of us will have no sympathy for either the scumbags who use Ashley Madison or those who blackmail them.
True, such entries COULD be filtered out, but it provides enough PC should they need it. What the OP suggests is at best not going to help and at worst going to create huge problems. All in all, a stupid idea.
That's a really fucking stupid idea. All you're gonna do is give the law enforcement agency probable case to get really invasive. The prefix text you put there won't stop that.
I know my current LG has already limited upgrade support for older SmartTV functions, so it's possible (likely) that my current TV will not support this upgrade. Crap.
Even then the F117, sometimes called the wobbly goblin, had to sacrifice much in terms of aerodynamics and flight characteristics to implement the first true stealth aircraft.
Not quite true. Sometimes called the wobbly goblin is true, but in truth it flies very well. From this article:
There have been many names for the F-117A. Let me tackle the "Wobbly Goblin" one first. According to every F-117A pilot I've talked to, the F-117A flies like any fighter should. As one pilot said "Nobody actually associated with the program while I was in it EVER called it the "Wobblin' Goblin," although I've seen that in print a lot. It didn't wobble--was a rock-solid platform (watch the combat videotape!)." The nickname of "Wobbly Goblin" is fictitious-no one ever called the F-117A that. Apparently a couple of old F-117A test pilots were at a test pilot convention. One of them made the reference that the plane felt like a "Wobbly Goblin" right before some particular computer compensation kicked in during an early flight test. This was heard by one guy, who told his friend, who in turn talked to a reporter in New York over the phone. The reporter then wrote it in an article incorrectly saying that pilots routinely use the term "Wobbly Goblin".
I see comments above talking about H1Bs and such. This is NOT outsourcing to India or anything like that. It's outsourcing to primarily U.S.-owned contractors, as opposed to U.S. Government (USG) employees. If you suggest that outsourcing is not the best technical solution, then you're suggesting the USG direct hires are as competent as those in industry. I can assure you that people don't switch to USG jobs for the technical challenges, however.
I feel bad for him, and I hope his family gets a decent settlement*, but have to ask why didn't he check the live line first? When I work on electrical stuff at home, I always check AND DOUBLECHECK that the breakers are off and that no juice is running. And, that's with voltages that won't necessarily kill me. Working with this level of voltage? Holy crap.
* As stated by some in the UK, it's not likely to be a big settlement. Too bad in this case.
Slashdot Mirror
Amen. Fuck you, Forbes.
I didn't miss it at all. I fully appreciate that people who have been exposed to public attention, right or wrong, desire and even should expect a right to rebuild their life. Barbara Streisand similarly should expect privacy and not have her address (home) posted for all the world to see. However, what her predicament showed us is that suing to keep something private backfires. It's exactly analogous to this alleged sex offender's plight.
I had no idea who this guy was. Now I do. May I introduce you to the Streisand Effect?
It is not an oxymoron. Someone with absolute power need not be a coward, but the administrators (in these examples) are proven cowards because they choose to stifle free speech rather than argue for it, however distasteful the free speech may be.
It's a combination of a horrible summary and horrible article. Maybe we can take the horrible article from IBT with a grain of salt because they don't purport to sell themselves as technical experts, but NeonBible and timothy should have done a better job. The real problem is that too many summaries on /. just copy some text from the article without actually summarizing it to (a) point out the technical relevance, (b) highlight the salient technical details, or (c) provide a decent initial (unbiased) comment.
I don't agree. This link gives you a better idea of what type of course it will likely be. Seems to be fairly reasonable as a computer science curriculum. I can tell you from personal experience that a real master's degree in computer science from a major university is not very useful anyway. I have yet to find a practical application of Rice's Theorem in my day job.
I remember a guy who blamed the NSA for him defrauding all the other shareholders. "Qwest is doing great, but just ignore the fact that I'm selling tens of millions of dollars in stock just before everything tanks!" Any executive in a company who sells stock while still working there needs to be investigated very thoroughly, especially if that company subsequently tanks without warning. Qwest, if you recall, had to restate BILLIONS in sales (there are more links if you care to search).
Indeed, like in this episode of Brain Games.
I think the method is a very strongly motivated post-purchase questionnaire type of thing. Basically, they pay something like a $25 gift card, wherein at least one of the questions helps link the purchase to the ad that motivated it. I think they must get enough responses from such measures to justify it.
This is probably a better picture. I hope it's legit.
This isn't about right or wrong. There's no logical fallacy here. This is simply about whether or not we even want to hear what he has to say, based on how he's saying it. You can choose on your own.
Yeah, so the guy talks like an arrogant twat, is he wrong?
Yes, goddamn it, he's wrong to talk like an arrogant twat. Is his proposal or desire wrong? I don't think enough of us give a shit enough to listen to his arrogant twatness to find out. The analogy to big, fat, ugly is not a good one.
Seems very much like the same guy. He posted chiptune on his site and also had some past underhanded entries there. Presumably, he's just not updating (or updated) for this last entry.
But, it's only 3 days late so that makes it okay!
True enough... but the folks I knew flying baloons there for cos-ray experiments were not nasa employees...
That's not quite as interesting as NASA employees in cosplay experiments.
They will continue to blackmail you. Why wouldn't they when so successful the first time? It's not like they're trustworthy or anything. If you're stupid enough to get involved with Ashley Madison in the first place, then just fess up to your wife and family and deal with the consequences. But, in the end, most of us will have no sympathy for either the scumbags who use Ashley Madison or those who blackmail them.
For those non-Americans who didn't or don't plan to RTFA, this is opinion piece on American journalism only.
Ha! You just whacked me with a good dose of nostalgia.
True, such entries COULD be filtered out, but it provides enough PC should they need it. What the OP suggests is at best not going to help and at worst going to create huge problems. All in all, a stupid idea.
That's a really fucking stupid idea. All you're gonna do is give the law enforcement agency probable case to get really invasive. The prefix text you put there won't stop that.
Congress clearly likes flushing money down the toilet.
That's tiny compared to what Congress normally flushes down the toilet.
I know my current LG has already limited upgrade support for older SmartTV functions, so it's possible (likely) that my current TV will not support this upgrade. Crap.
Even then the F117, sometimes called the wobbly goblin, had to sacrifice much in terms of aerodynamics and flight characteristics to implement the first true stealth aircraft.
Not quite true. Sometimes called the wobbly goblin is true, but in truth it flies very well. From this article:
There have been many names for the F-117A. Let me tackle the "Wobbly Goblin" one first. According to every F-117A pilot I've talked to, the F-117A flies like any fighter should. As one pilot said "Nobody actually associated with the program while I was in it EVER called it the "Wobblin' Goblin," although I've seen that in print a lot. It didn't wobble--was a rock-solid platform (watch the combat videotape!)." The nickname of "Wobbly Goblin" is fictitious-no one ever called the F-117A that. Apparently a couple of old F-117A test pilots were at a test pilot convention. One of them made the reference that the plane felt like a "Wobbly Goblin" right before some particular computer compensation kicked in during an early flight test. This was heard by one guy, who told his friend, who in turn talked to a reporter in New York over the phone. The reporter then wrote it in an article incorrectly saying that pilots routinely use the term "Wobbly Goblin".
I see comments above talking about H1Bs and such. This is NOT outsourcing to India or anything like that. It's outsourcing to primarily U.S.-owned contractors, as opposed to U.S. Government (USG) employees. If you suggest that outsourcing is not the best technical solution, then you're suggesting the USG direct hires are as competent as those in industry. I can assure you that people don't switch to USG jobs for the technical challenges, however.
I feel bad for him, and I hope his family gets a decent settlement*, but have to ask why didn't he check the live line first? When I work on electrical stuff at home, I always check AND DOUBLECHECK that the breakers are off and that no juice is running. And, that's with voltages that won't necessarily kill me. Working with this level of voltage? Holy crap.
* As stated by some in the UK, it's not likely to be a big settlement. Too bad in this case.