Yeah, my experience is that anyone remotely competent is booked forever, while those you can get are all too weighted to the blithering idiot side of the scale. It has inspired me to do my own work, in which I have learned a lot, and realized that I am also somewhat incompetent (but less so than many others, and cheaper, if also much slower).
In my experience, United Airlines is shit, don't care if they're shit, will tell you point blank you shouldn't expect anything but shit, and would you like some more shit?
Remedial math, elementary statistics, and basic algebra are not typically filter courses. In a university context most students who choose to take those courses should be passing.
And that's where everything goes wrong. You know, under "normal and expected conditions" there isn't any dogshit on the sidewalk, but guess what?
I'm aware that not every situation is deal... but a driver who's actually otherwise competent should be able to recognize those situations the instant that they arise..
Unless of course they're busy with whatever else they do under "normal and expected conditions." Switching attention takes time---there's a reason why sprinters are not chatting on the phone right up until they hear the starting gun.
There's no doubt the tech-industry could use a lot less pimply-teenage-boy-ism. But in this case, no: firing Richards is about on par. If you TFA you'll find she made jokes herself, on twitter (not even an overheard private conversation), about stuffing socks down pants in TSA pat-downs. That's pretty much exactly in the same stratum as the jokes she was complaining about---both childish and sex-related, neither sexist. If one is worth firing, then so is the other (although both firings are over-reactions, to put it mildly).
The publishers need to do a better job of lowering prices as time passes and on older books. But this "digital should be basically free" meme is bullshit.
No, it's not. People accepted physical book prices because they had no way to print them as nicely (yes, that does include the hard/soft-cover, dust-jacket, as well as actual binding, however shitty the glue-binding of current books), and they were willing to attribute some costs to transportation, shelf-stocking/presence, staff in the stores, and so forth. That was made books of value to your average consumer. E-books take that *all* away. The only thing left is a piddly bandwidth cost, and hard to quantify-or-appreciate, mysterious marketing/administration/editing costs. Whether that was actually the bulk of the cost or not doesn't matter---the price of actually printing a book is not the important part here, it's the perception of the price of a printed book. A physical object still seems inherently more valuable than a license to read a book on a device you have to buy separately.
Publishers can whine all they want about how little the physical book costs and how much of the publication cost is really all the other things, but all that does is inform consumers that publishers have been ripping them off for years.
Yes, it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, snooping on what you search for by intermediaries is a bit harder, but on the other hand attributing a specific search to you is now just a bit easier.
No, the controversy is in how to maximize patient disgust for the technique. It's ok though, I think they found the ideal solution:
*Correction, 5:20 p.m.: Some physicians have been successfully treating patients for C. difficile with ground-up, filtered fecal material inserted into the stomach with a tube, not via an enema.
...Customers can provide information about the size of their home, whether they rent or own, the number of adults and children in their family, if anyone stays in during the day and what appliances they own....
If you don't want information to get out, don't give it out.
"The indictment accuses Swartz of repeatedly spoofing the MAC address — an identifier that is usually static — of his computer after MIT blocked his computer based on that number.
Right, and...? Is a MAC address some sort of protected id? Everyone knows that MAC filtering is ineffective, and MAC altering is enabled by hardware.
Swartz didn't provide a real e-mail address when registering on the network.
Uh oh, I'm in trouble.
Swartz allegedly hid his face from surveillance cameras by holding his bike helmet up to his face and looking through the ventilation holes when going in to swap out an external drive used to store the documents.
Again, so what? Is it some requirement that we display ourselves clearly to all security cameras?
Swartz also allegedly named his guest account 'Gary Host,' with the nickname 'Ghost.'"
From TFA, being in the same swarm does not mean any given pair (let alone 5-tuple) of participants actually exchanged data. In fact:
Here, the activity alleged in the complaint not only did not take place
simultaneously with each other, but took place at five discrete times involving a single defendant
over an 88 day period extending almost three months. The moving defendant (Doe 4) allegedly
accessed the swarm at issue on February 3, 2012 at 2:48 a.m. The closest preceding “hit”, that of
Doe 5, allegedly occurred 50 days earlier, on December 16, 2011. The closest succeeding “hit”,
that of Doe 2, allegedly occurred 15 days later, on February 18, 2012. Such temporal gaps
compel a finding that the five Does did not act in concert with each other
As they point out in their faq, companies may not reliably use the bad ones. That leaves it unclear whether a statement doesn't apply (e.g., no facility is provided to access and export your data because none is collected), or whether someone is just refusing to disclose whether the statement is true or not. An icon indicating that a policy statement doesn't apply would help clarify that distinction.
Also, I'm not sure what the icon for indicating the site alerts you to policy changes implies...is posting a notice on the website sufficient (for how long? does it need a history?), or is it supposed to mean that direct contact (an email) will be made?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, my experience is that anyone remotely competent is booked forever, while those you can get are all too weighted to the blithering idiot side of the scale. It has inspired me to do my own work, in which I have learned a lot, and realized that I am also somewhat incompetent (but less so than many others, and cheaper, if also much slower).
I still maintain that by not buying a ticket my odds of winning are not significantly reduced.
Seriously, spend your war budget on something useful instead of international e-peni.
..and then you copy the key and have free random parcels forever?
That is the essence of a traditional business death-spiral.
Not my post, but dial-a-bus services existed in the 1980s. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dial-a-bus
In my experience, United Airlines is shit, don't care if they're shit, will tell you point blank you shouldn't expect anything but shit, and would you like some more shit?
and they break guitars.
Remedial math, elementary statistics, and basic algebra are not typically filter courses. In a university context most students who choose to take those courses should be passing.
Under nominal and expected driving conditions...
And that's where everything goes wrong. You know, under "normal and expected conditions" there isn't any dogshit on the sidewalk, but guess what?
I'm aware that not every situation is deal... but a driver who's actually otherwise competent should be able to recognize those situations the instant that they arise..
Unless of course they're busy with whatever else they do under "normal and expected conditions." Switching attention takes time---there's a reason why sprinters are not chatting on the phone right up until they hear the starting gun.
There's no doubt the tech-industry could use a lot less pimply-teenage-boy-ism. But in this case, no: firing Richards is about on par. If you TFA you'll find she made jokes herself, on twitter (not even an overheard private conversation), about stuffing socks down pants in TSA pat-downs. That's pretty much exactly in the same stratum as the jokes she was complaining about---both childish and sex-related, neither sexist. If one is worth firing, then so is the other (although both firings are over-reactions, to put it mildly).
The publishers need to do a better job of lowering prices as time passes and on older books. But this "digital should be basically free" meme is bullshit.
No, it's not. People accepted physical book prices because they had no way to print them as nicely (yes, that does include the hard/soft-cover, dust-jacket, as well as actual binding, however shitty the glue-binding of current books), and they were willing to attribute some costs to transportation, shelf-stocking/presence, staff in the stores, and so forth. That was made books of value to your average consumer. E-books take that *all* away. The only thing left is a piddly bandwidth cost, and hard to quantify-or-appreciate, mysterious marketing/administration/editing costs. Whether that was actually the bulk of the cost or not doesn't matter---the price of actually printing a book is not the important part here, it's the perception of the price of a printed book. A physical object still seems inherently more valuable than a license to read a book on a device you have to buy separately.
Publishers can whine all they want about how little the physical book costs and how much of the publication cost is really all the other things, but all that does is inform consumers that publishers have been ripping them off for years.
Yes, it's a double-edged sword. On one hand, snooping on what you search for by intermediaries is a bit harder, but on the other hand attributing a specific search to you is now just a bit easier.
anything connected somehow is trackable somehow and eventually will be.
...unless you're clever, like Ronald McDonald or Colonel Sanders, the real identities of which are still mysteries.
Most presenters are not great comedians and should avoid that pattern.
*Correction, 5:20 p.m.: Some physicians have been successfully treating patients for C. difficile with ground-up, filtered fecal material inserted into the stomach with a tube, not via an enema.
If you don't want information to get out, don't give it out.
"The indictment accuses Swartz of repeatedly spoofing the MAC address — an identifier that is usually static — of his computer after MIT blocked his computer based on that number.
Right, and...? Is a MAC address some sort of protected id? Everyone knows that MAC filtering is ineffective, and MAC altering is enabled by hardware.
Swartz didn't provide a real e-mail address when registering on the network.
Uh oh, I'm in trouble.
Swartz allegedly hid his face from surveillance cameras by holding his bike helmet up to his face and looking through the ventilation holes when going in to swap out an external drive used to store the documents.
Again, so what? Is it some requirement that we display ourselves clearly to all security cameras?
Swartz also allegedly named his guest account 'Gary Host,' with the nickname 'Ghost.'"
Well, that is scary. Prosecute away then.
A counter is pretty benign. Most of the linked articles are a dense nest of tracking sites.
The marketing people have figured out that slashdot is a good source of eyeballs long ago. I suggest you block as you feel appropriate.
The real moral of that story is that reality tv is entertainment, not science.
French? Please, we're talking about tomorrow, not yesterday.
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lingua_francas
The lingua-franca of tomorrow.
Here, the activity alleged in the complaint not only did not take place simultaneously with each other, but took place at five discrete times involving a single defendant over an 88 day period extending almost three months. The moving defendant (Doe 4) allegedly accessed the swarm at issue on February 3, 2012 at 2:48 a.m. The closest preceding “hit”, that of Doe 5, allegedly occurred 50 days earlier, on December 16, 2011. The closest succeeding “hit”, that of Doe 2, allegedly occurred 15 days later, on February 18, 2012. Such temporal gaps compel a finding that the five Does did not act in concert with each other
That is not acting "in concert".
They forgot to patent "driving legitimate users to bittorrent through adding techniques designed to irritate paying customers".
But I suppose there's lots of prior art there.
Great. I'm sure this will be every bit as successful as the war on poverty, war on drugs, war on terrorism. How are those doing anyway?
As they point out in their faq, companies may not reliably use the bad ones. That leaves it unclear whether a statement doesn't apply (e.g., no facility is provided to access and export your data because none is collected), or whether someone is just refusing to disclose whether the statement is true or not. An icon indicating that a policy statement doesn't apply would help clarify that distinction.
Also, I'm not sure what the icon for indicating the site alerts you to policy changes implies...is posting a notice on the website sufficient (for how long? does it need a history?), or is it supposed to mean that direct contact (an email) will be made?