Having an insecure computer can make it safer to have something like illegal-exceptions-to-the-first-amendment stored on your computer. If your computer is completely secured, you can't deny that you put it there.
More importantly, the personal information of the general public is not private. The reason you have a four digit pin number is because it's less trouble for the bank than you having an actual password: it's less trouble for them to refund your money than it is for them to constantly support "I forgot my password" calls. Your credit card number is even more insecure. There are actually types of accounts for people who feel like paying for security, and if you aren't paying for one, then you don't have one. If you can be persuaded otherwise, then naevite' is indeed what we should be discussing.
However, my employer only covers about $260 of it. I have to pay the other $450 of it myself.
It drives me nuts that everyone always says things like this. Who cares whose name is on the check? If you got paid an extra $260 and had to cover the cost yourself, would you still say that your employer is paying for it? You are paying for this with your employment and with your lack of choices (due to the employer being tied in).
Depends on if you are making a universally quantified or an existentially quantified claim. Unless you are stating that another person's anecdotal evidence is not evidence for you, which is understandable.
I don't know all the details, but this reads like you aren't correctly identifying who is IT.
When your printer breaks, or you need a new computer installed, you call IT.
When you work at a manufacturing plant and you need software for the machines, that's not IT. That's development. It sounds to me like you have an IT department of one person (you) and that your development team is helping out with IT. "Projects with deadlines" is not usually a phrase you hear from IT unless it's a project like upgrading everyone's software. It sounds to me like you are letting management downplay your contribution with incorrect job titles.
Even the incumbent makers of hammers would be happier living in a world where it isn't illegal to make a better hammer. They might moan and cry about it, and pretend like their case is special, but everyone is worse off when policy becomes "hinder technological progress to protect the economy of old technology".
Presumably the poster is trying to say that making the software open source is promoting the technology available to everyone, and since it is progress in technology, there is no need to protect the makers of the old costly technology.
Consider this, what if you had a magic button that you could push, and if you did then free versions of software would be created that provide the same functionality as every piece of proprietary software ever written? Would you push the button?
If you are depending on cops to protect you being being "hit", then if someone decides to "hit" you, then you will be in for a big surprise. Police aren't bodyguards. They aren't magical leprechauns that jump out of fire hydrants and save you. You might be able to defend yourself, you might have hired help to defend you, but the cops aren't going to do anything besides ask you questions.
Question #1 is not really asking for an opinion. It is asking that you evaluate the suggestions to see which is the best option. Given your sample story it is clear that the b) option is the correct one since it best summarizes the story. If your kid missed that question, then he/she is indeed missing the ability to evaluate the story. So the test seems to have done a good job corrctly evaluating your child.
Any decent writing curriculum would have taught you that titles should not summarize stories. What was that collection of books called, "a bunch of misfits deliver a ring south", or was it called "The Lord of the Rings" ? Go find a collection of titles, and see if any of them summarize the story they identify. (B) is the worst answer for a title to a story. (C) is actually the most likely title to be chosen for a story. But that still doesn't make any of them right. OP is correct, it is a very bad question.
Question #2 is indeed asking your child to come up with reasonable extensions on the story.
Really? Do you have access to some original form of the test that the rest of us do not? Otherwise, the question is not asking for extensions at all. The most correct answer is probably (A). He didn't change his socks when they got wet, he changed them when he got home. If he hadn't arrived home, he wouldn't have changed his socks. "Why" questions never have only 1 answer.
You should be celebrating a test that has accurately found a weakness in your child’s abilities, and working with your child to better develop these skills.
Well then I have something for you to celebrate too! Here's the good news. There is a common mistake people make. Two people encounter a description. The first sees and ambiguity, and the second does not. The second thinks he's smarter than the first because he is unaware of the ambiguity. The first is actually smarter because he can see the problem.
Guess which one you are, and guess which one the OP's child is? Fortunately, with the sort of parenting that child is getting, I think he'll be fine. On the other hand, you still have celebrating to do.
All immigrants work hard. I strongly doubt your work is harder than working on farms, or more useful than providing affordable food. Yet these people don't get the title of citizenship.
I completely agree with you that working in a competitive economy is something that contributes to everyone else around you. Considering how many people don't do that (I'm thinking about those who get privileged easy jobs), it is certainly true that it is beneficial for you to be present.
But we both know that hard work and contributing to an economy don't earn a person citizenship. Plenty of people are harder working and better educated than you or me and don't get citizenship. I know those with college educations and worked harder than you can imagine who can't get citizenship on technicalities even.
More importantly, plenty of people don't work hard and are just born with citizenship. "Citizenship" is just a title awarded to people which grants them rights, it is not something that is earned. It especially does not justify the condescending position that citizens take towards those who are here without citizenship.
They are literally immigrants without citizenship. That phrase is 100% accurate, it captures everyone who is meant to be captured by it and doesn't capture anyone else.
The problem most will have with the phrase is the question of "whose fault is it?" that the choice of phrase leaves open. If you say "illegal immigrant" then it automatically assumes some criminal intent on the part of the immigrant. If you say "without citizenship" then it leaves open the question of "whose fault is it that they don't have citizenship?"
Citizenship is just a title. Don't ever delude yourself to think that you earned it, or that it is something that you deserve because of some virtue you maintain. There is no royalty is in the US.
On a related but independent note: (rant begins here)
How the hell is it your business if someone wants to live in the US? If they find a landlord who will rent to them and a job that will pay them, then it is absolutely no one else's concern. At most, it would be a zoning issue for counties trying to handle local population size. Even that is a stretch.
But in return for this paranoia, what have you gained? Suppose one day that you want to go live in France or Korea or somewhere else. Well guess what, you can't. Because they have the same policy you have, maybe in 10 years after you've given up tons of money and dignity, and then maybe you can somehow be treated as a second class citizen.
Thank god for you though, you have no intention of living somewhere besides where you were born. And you are totally fine living in this cage you've built for everyone.
If it became generally accepted that people should have the right to live in whatever state or country they want, this would be the single most important right any human would have. It would do far more to protect your other rights than even "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Press", because when all else fails you can just leave to live with like minded people. (end rant)
Writing your own bot from scratch and watching it play and interact is far more fun than the game itself. If you design it well enough then it's more much rewarding than doing things manually. Or you can write a semi manual bot to assist.
Sitting in front of a computer, doing all the tedious tasks manually...that's really just an insult to the entire history of electronic computer design.
The first computers were humans. There was no first programmer.
In terms of being a pioneer of formalizing and proving a nontrivial algorithm from axioms, Euclid can't get enough credit for his work like computing greatest common divisor. He was like the Knuth of the ancient world.
The point is to provide a way for people to show that votes are being counted correctly or incorrectly. As far as fixing things goes, that requires human motivation which no protocol can provide.
One way would be to publish your receipt with a redacted name. One might be ignored, but if 1000 are ignored then as I said, "human motivation" is lacking.
Another way would be to show your receipt to 1 public official that you trust. You would actually want the lists to be published per-voter-district, and if you can't trust anyone in the district that you live, you should move.
Forged receipts are actually more interesting, but why would you want to forge a vote for someone rather than just voting for them directly? I can only really think of doing it to grief the voting officials.
Give everyone who votes a receipt with a unique serial number, and a list of how they voted.
Release 2 lists to the public (no private lists are kept): First, a list of everyone who voted. Just name and address. Second, a list of how each serial number voted. No correlation between the order of the lists should exist.
It is anonymous. You can ensure that there are no extra votes, as the list lengths should be the same. You can ensure that no fake people voted by auditing the first list. You can ensure your vote was counted correctly by checking your receipt again the second list. It requires no trust of private parties because there is no private list.
Yes, it is possible to have anonymity and vote verification.
This shutdown will have nothing to do with what's essential and what isn't essential. Suppose you are getting income for multiple services. Then you are told "shut down the one that isn't essential so we can pay you less." Only an idiot would shut down the essential one. You want to make the point "give us less money and it will suck for you", which you can only do by shutting down the most useful services. That's why the IRS will shut down "question and answering", it will be painful later when the audits are resumed.
Slashdot Mirror
Having an insecure computer can make it safer to have something like illegal-exceptions-to-the-first-amendment stored on your computer. If your computer is completely secured, you can't deny that you put it there.
More importantly, the personal information of the general public is not private. The reason you have a four digit pin number is because it's less trouble for the bank than you having an actual password: it's less trouble for them to refund your money than it is for them to constantly support "I forgot my password" calls. Your credit card number is even more insecure. There are actually types of accounts for people who feel like paying for security, and if you aren't paying for one, then you don't have one. If you can be persuaded otherwise, then naevite' is indeed what we should be discussing.
My parents computers don't have missile launch codes on them, they don't need to be secure. They need to be recoverable.
1) Any photos, bookmarks, etc that you want to keep: have a copy of it on a backup DVD
2) Be able to format and reinstall
Anything else is just extra.
However, my employer only covers about $260 of it. I have to pay the other $450 of it myself.
It drives me nuts that everyone always says things like this. Who cares whose name is on the check? If you got paid an extra $260 and had to cover the cost yourself, would you still say that your employer is paying for it? You are paying for this with your employment and with your lack of choices (due to the employer being tied in).
The problem is that they are working together, and they get to write the laws, which is why better options can't make themselves known.
Depends on if you are making a universally quantified or an existentially quantified claim. Unless you are stating that another person's anecdotal evidence is not evidence for you, which is understandable.
Yes, thats a good way to put it. I wonder what his other 4 coworkers think.
I don't know all the details, but this reads like you aren't correctly identifying who is IT.
When your printer breaks, or you need a new computer installed, you call IT.
When you work at a manufacturing plant and you need software for the machines, that's not IT. That's development. It sounds to me like you have an IT department of one person (you) and that your development team is helping out with IT. "Projects with deadlines" is not usually a phrase you hear from IT unless it's a project like upgrading everyone's software. It sounds to me like you are letting management downplay your contribution with incorrect job titles.
Even the incumbent makers of hammers would be happier living in a world where it isn't illegal to make a better hammer. They might moan and cry about it, and pretend like their case is special, but everyone is worse off when policy becomes "hinder technological progress to protect the economy of old technology".
Presumably the poster is trying to say that making the software open source is promoting the technology available to everyone, and since it is progress in technology, there is no need to protect the makers of the old costly technology.
Consider this, what if you had a magic button that you could push, and if you did then free versions of software would be created that provide the same functionality as every piece of proprietary software ever written? Would you push the button?
This is what happens when you spend money that you didn't have to earn.
If you are depending on cops to protect you being being "hit", then if someone decides to "hit" you, then you will be in for a big surprise. Police aren't bodyguards. They aren't magical leprechauns that jump out of fire hydrants and save you. You might be able to defend yourself, you might have hired help to defend you, but the cops aren't going to do anything besides ask you questions.
Question #1 is not really asking for an opinion. It is asking that you evaluate the suggestions to see which is the best option. Given your sample story it is clear that the b) option is the correct one since it best summarizes the story. If your kid missed that question, then he/she is indeed missing the ability to evaluate the story. So the test seems to have done a good job corrctly evaluating your child.
Any decent writing curriculum would have taught you that titles should not summarize stories. What was that collection of books called, "a bunch of misfits deliver a ring south", or was it called "The Lord of the Rings" ? Go find a collection of titles, and see if any of them summarize the story they identify. (B) is the worst answer for a title to a story. (C) is actually the most likely title to be chosen for a story. But that still doesn't make any of them right. OP is correct, it is a very bad question.
Question #2 is indeed asking your child to come up with reasonable extensions on the story.
Really? Do you have access to some original form of the test that the rest of us do not? Otherwise, the question is not asking for extensions at all. The most correct answer is probably (A). He didn't change his socks when they got wet, he changed them when he got home. If he hadn't arrived home, he wouldn't have changed his socks. "Why" questions never have only 1 answer.
You should be celebrating a test that has accurately found a weakness in your child’s abilities, and working with your child to better develop these skills.
Well then I have something for you to celebrate too! Here's the good news. There is a common mistake people make. Two people encounter a description. The first sees and ambiguity, and the second does not. The second thinks he's smarter than the first because he is unaware of the ambiguity. The first is actually smarter because he can see the problem.
Guess which one you are, and guess which one the OP's child is? Fortunately, with the sort of parenting that child is getting, I think he'll be fine. On the other hand, you still have celebrating to do.
...it may be a FACTOR, the impact of that factor is the crucial question. It may well be zero. It may well be quite a lot.
Shouldn't the factor with the least influence be the multiplicative identity, 1, not 0?
This isn't business.
Hmm, I shouldn't have said "all immigrants work hard", but I think you can still understand the idea I was trying to present.
All immigrants work hard. I strongly doubt your work is harder than working on farms, or more useful than providing affordable food. Yet these people don't get the title of citizenship.
I completely agree with you that working in a competitive economy is something that contributes to everyone else around you. Considering how many people don't do that (I'm thinking about those who get privileged easy jobs), it is certainly true that it is beneficial for you to be present.
But we both know that hard work and contributing to an economy don't earn a person citizenship. Plenty of people are harder working and better educated than you or me and don't get citizenship. I know those with college educations and worked harder than you can imagine who can't get citizenship on technicalities even.
More importantly, plenty of people don't work hard and are just born with citizenship. "Citizenship" is just a title awarded to people which grants them rights, it is not something that is earned. It especially does not justify the condescending position that citizens take towards those who are here without citizenship.
They are literally immigrants without citizenship. That phrase is 100% accurate, it captures everyone who is meant to be captured by it and doesn't capture anyone else.
The problem most will have with the phrase is the question of "whose fault is it?" that the choice of phrase leaves open. If you say "illegal immigrant" then it automatically assumes some criminal intent on the part of the immigrant. If you say "without citizenship" then it leaves open the question of "whose fault is it that they don't have citizenship?"
Citizenship is just a title. Don't ever delude yourself to think that you earned it, or that it is something that you deserve because of some virtue you maintain. There is no royalty is in the US.
On a related but independent note: (rant begins here)
How the hell is it your business if someone wants to live in the US? If they find a landlord who will rent to them and a job that will pay them, then it is absolutely no one else's concern. At most, it would be a zoning issue for counties trying to handle local population size. Even that is a stretch.
But in return for this paranoia, what have you gained? Suppose one day that you want to go live in France or Korea or somewhere else. Well guess what, you can't. Because they have the same policy you have, maybe in 10 years after you've given up tons of money and dignity, and then maybe you can somehow be treated as a second class citizen.
Thank god for you though, you have no intention of living somewhere besides where you were born. And you are totally fine living in this cage you've built for everyone.
If it became generally accepted that people should have the right to live in whatever state or country they want, this would be the single most important right any human would have. It would do far more to protect your other rights than even "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of Press", because when all else fails you can just leave to live with like minded people.
(end rant)
Linux runs on old hardware.
Linux runs on embedded hardware.
Linux runs on XBOX.
Linux runs on a toaster.
Some geek out there is smugly telling his friends "I made Linux run on a US Navy Destroyer".
Then, while not strictly speaking an issue of Constitutional jurisdiction, there is the whole issue of perjury in front of congress.
Writing your own bot from scratch and watching it play and interact is far more fun than the game itself. If you design it well enough then it's more much rewarding than doing things manually. Or you can write a semi manual bot to assist.
Sitting in front of a computer, doing all the tedious tasks manually...that's really just an insult to the entire history of electronic computer design.
The first computers were humans. There was no first programmer.
In terms of being a pioneer of formalizing and proving a nontrivial algorithm from axioms, Euclid can't get enough credit for his work like computing greatest common divisor. He was like the Knuth of the ancient world.
The point is to provide a way for people to show that votes are being counted correctly or incorrectly. As far as fixing things goes, that requires human motivation which no protocol can provide.
One way would be to publish your receipt with a redacted name. One might be ignored, but if 1000 are ignored then as I said, "human motivation" is lacking.
Another way would be to show your receipt to 1 public official that you trust. You would actually want the lists to be published per-voter-district, and if you can't trust anyone in the district that you live, you should move.
Forged receipts are actually more interesting, but why would you want to forge a vote for someone rather than just voting for them directly? I can only really think of doing it to grief the voting officials.
Give everyone who votes a receipt with a unique serial number, and a list of how they voted.
Release 2 lists to the public (no private lists are kept): First, a list of everyone who voted. Just name and address. Second, a list of how each serial number voted. No correlation between the order of the lists should exist.
It is anonymous. You can ensure that there are no extra votes, as the list lengths should be the same. You can ensure that no fake people voted by auditing the first list. You can ensure your vote was counted correctly by checking your receipt again the second list. It requires no trust of private parties because there is no private list.
Yes, it is possible to have anonymity and vote verification.
That's just what oppressive governments do. They have to monitor everything to stay in power.
OOPS I meant "only an idiot would shut down the nonessential one." That or someone who is feeling really altruistic.
This shutdown will have nothing to do with what's essential and what isn't essential. Suppose you are getting income for multiple services. Then you are told "shut down the one that isn't essential so we can pay you less." Only an idiot would shut down the essential one. You want to make the point "give us less money and it will suck for you", which you can only do by shutting down the most useful services. That's why the IRS will shut down "question and answering", it will be painful later when the audits are resumed.