I'm sorry; I fail to see the point you are trying to make. By your logic, I should ignore any good things that anyone ever does because of a differing perspective on how things should be. Of course, I may have interpreted your statements incorrectly as they seem off topic and rather aimless and confused. I'm sure I have some tin-foil around here somewhere that I could make a hat out of and send to you. Consider it a gift from the "dood" who blindly "obey[s] the master corporation[s]".
Shouldn't there still be some sort of program to further their knowledge if they should deem necessary? If a child wins the contest, and shows potential, then why give them a $1000 and end it there? You are right about possibly not winning a Chrome/Firefox bounty, but lets get them there.
Glad to see they are encouraging white hat hacking. I hope they remain effective. Thousand dollars seems a little low. Surely they can do better, and put it towards their future education needs.
Its hard to make an umbrella that small fit over such a large territory isn't it? Nearly everything you said pertains to just a few states in the south eastern region. Please if you will make fun of this awful country, do it properly!
Which rightly represents a good portion of Windows Partners/Users. Microsoft rarely (if ever?) presents logic to their false-promises, because they know that people are prone to blindly nod and continue. Its unfortunate that I have to admit that I do like using Microsoft's products, even if I do have a problem with some of the ways their company operates.
Maybe I should have used a car analogy. This IS slashdot, of course. Cars blah blah blah OBDII blah blah blah get new car blah blah blah left without easy diagnostics.
Then the company chooses to spend an extra 6% to 7% on online purchases. The user shouldn't give a shit less about it. Its not his money and if his superior said to order it and if he/she informed the management of the charges, I don't see the problem. Eventually people/businesses will catch on and either A) Switch Browsers or B) Upgrade/Switch OSes or even C) Both 'A' and 'B'.
Should you be shopping on PCs you don't manage? If its work related, then I think they may allow for a browser upgrade to save a 6.8% fee. This is how you finally push businesses to start keeping up with progress. Are they still stuck on XP? Well then download fucking Chrome/Opera/Firefox/Safari!
Public school systems in the USA require students to have certain vaccinations in order to enroll in the student-body. Is this fair? For the benefit of man-kind, vaccinate your children and educate the bastards. Its the same thing. For the benefit of the tech industry, we need to enforce certain things. If that means forcing a browser upgrade/change, then so be it. Continuing with old tech is harmful to more than just the people using it. The website could kindly suggest upgrading to the newest version of IE. If that is not possible given the version of the OS, suggest an alternative until the OS can be upgraded. This keeps the anti-competitive levels low. I would suggest the same things for old versions of other browsers as well.
I wasn't sure how to moderate this. I'm pretty sure its a super-effective troll. Yet some part of me suggests you might actually be serious so I opted out of wasting a mod point.
It would take 30 seconds to dial-out a request for water to shower with. Then you have to wait for the heat to download. Once you finally have hot water, it will randomly shut off and there you stand, shivering. So you decide to give up and get out but when you reach for the towel, its only partially there and corrupted. So you make a request for the rest of the towel, wait 30 seconds for the connection again, and realize that you have to start the download over so you try to make the partial towel work for your needs only to realize that its just not going to work. So you go ahead and restart the towel download but it instantly shows complete, but yet there is no towel. Now you have to wait on AOL to clear your cache, start the download again, and get disconnected once more. You would jump out the window but a request to open it would just be futile.
I may be wrong, but is it not a standard procedure to rsync files to one backup location that is not directly accessible from the original data and then have a backup of the backup in an offsite location? The backup-backup should contain a pool of data that is no longer on the original drive but is kept for such purposes as this. I may be missing some piece of the puzzle here, but in the scenarios I have been involved in this was the setup and has greatly restricted the ability to lose ANY data. Of course we dealt with small businesses and may not have been subjected to such a large attack.
IBM Employee: "Siri?"
Siri:"Yes?"
IBM Employee: "Remind me to file for the patent on the [insert technology here], tomorrow."
Siri: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
"remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post"
So if an ANONYMOUS poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post, its okay. So all we have to do is contact an ANONYMOUS poster, correct? That should be easy! So I suppose they aren't really anonymous then, are they?
I'm not suggesting he should actually be convicted as the cause of Tyler's death. I am more-so referring to the list of 15 or so charges brought against him, although my bad joke made it impossible to see. Throw the 'cause-of-death' charge out the door and he still should have served more. Of course, try as you may, it won't make him more tolerant, but may make him a bit more careful about the actions he takes. My sarcasm can derail and provide you with the post I made above. I was making a point through a bad joke.
As for your question at the end, I'm not sure I see the difference. Maybe the world is much more intolerant than I have been willing to admit, but I just don't see a difference between whether the boy was homosexual or not.
Of course not. I was making a point about how our system seems to work and my example was not entirely accurate either. He was, however, tried with 15 charges and he got out of it rather easy. I don't believe he should be convicted as the cause of death, but he was very reckless.
I agree with you mostly because I have been witness to the example I presented and have seen it go both ways dependent on the cooperation of the defendant and the amount of prior convictions. I am also not asking he be charged with anything directly related to the suicide but there were 15 charges brought against him I believe, and if you can turn that into only 30 days, then I find something to be wrong. The way I see it, this will teach him nothing of tolerance and care. This cannot be mended through fines and jail time. I also do not have a CLUE as to what would be a proper punishment, so I suppose I should have never typed out this comment. Oh well.
Sorry, I was in the process of posting an addendum to the above comment. I hoped nobody would reply before-hand. You're totally right though, but trust can (and should) go a long ways.
"Mr. Ravi was not charged with causing Mr. Clementi’s death, but the suicide hung heavily over the trial" So that means he still gets away with invasion of privacy. I suppose he should go work for Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.Hell, make that ANY company that has access to personal information!
So I can get a year in prison for having a joint on my person, but I can invade someone's privacy and become the cause of their death and just suffer a month? Interesting how that works.
Slashdot Mirror
Or have I been trolled by a pro?
I'm sorry; I fail to see the point you are trying to make. By your logic, I should ignore any good things that anyone ever does because of a differing perspective on how things should be. Of course, I may have interpreted your statements incorrectly as they seem off topic and rather aimless and confused. I'm sure I have some tin-foil around here somewhere that I could make a hat out of and send to you. Consider it a gift from the "dood" who blindly "obey[s] the master corporation[s]".
Shouldn't there still be some sort of program to further their knowledge if they should deem necessary? If a child wins the contest, and shows potential, then why give them a $1000 and end it there? You are right about possibly not winning a Chrome/Firefox bounty, but lets get them there.
Glad to see they are encouraging white hat hacking. I hope they remain effective. Thousand dollars seems a little low. Surely they can do better, and put it towards their future education needs.
Its hard to make an umbrella that small fit over such a large territory isn't it? Nearly everything you said pertains to just a few states in the south eastern region. Please if you will make fun of this awful country, do it properly!
Except I think it mightn't be necessary since there is another, more efficient, idea that seems to be promising.
Which rightly represents a good portion of Windows Partners/Users. Microsoft rarely (if ever?) presents logic to their false-promises, because they know that people are prone to blindly nod and continue. Its unfortunate that I have to admit that I do like using Microsoft's products, even if I do have a problem with some of the ways their company operates.
Not enough.
Maybe I should have used a car analogy. This IS slashdot, of course. Cars blah blah blah OBDII blah blah blah get new car blah blah blah left without easy diagnostics.
Good point though.
Then the company chooses to spend an extra 6% to 7% on online purchases. The user shouldn't give a shit less about it. Its not his money and if his superior said to order it and if he/she informed the management of the charges, I don't see the problem. Eventually people/businesses will catch on and either A) Switch Browsers or B) Upgrade/Switch OSes or even C) Both 'A' and 'B'.
Should you be shopping on PCs you don't manage? If its work related, then I think they may allow for a browser upgrade to save a 6.8% fee. This is how you finally push businesses to start keeping up with progress. Are they still stuck on XP? Well then download fucking Chrome/Opera/Firefox/Safari!
Public school systems in the USA require students to have certain vaccinations in order to enroll in the student-body. Is this fair? For the benefit of man-kind, vaccinate your children and educate the bastards. Its the same thing. For the benefit of the tech industry, we need to enforce certain things. If that means forcing a browser upgrade/change, then so be it. Continuing with old tech is harmful to more than just the people using it. The website could kindly suggest upgrading to the newest version of IE. If that is not possible given the version of the OS, suggest an alternative until the OS can be upgraded. This keeps the anti-competitive levels low. I would suggest the same things for old versions of other browsers as well.
As for the ADA? That's besides the point.
I wasn't sure how to moderate this. I'm pretty sure its a super-effective troll. Yet some part of me suggests you might actually be serious so I opted out of wasting a mod point.
It would take 30 seconds to dial-out a request for water to shower with. Then you have to wait for the heat to download. Once you finally have hot water, it will randomly shut off and there you stand, shivering. So you decide to give up and get out but when you reach for the towel, its only partially there and corrupted. So you make a request for the rest of the towel, wait 30 seconds for the connection again, and realize that you have to start the download over so you try to make the partial towel work for your needs only to realize that its just not going to work. So you go ahead and restart the towel download but it instantly shows complete, but yet there is no towel. Now you have to wait on AOL to clear your cache, start the download again, and get disconnected once more. You would jump out the window but a request to open it would just be futile.
Exactly my point! Yet I still get comments stating the backups are deleted. These must be the people who are running these servers.
I may be wrong, but is it not a standard procedure to rsync files to one backup location that is not directly accessible from the original data and then have a backup of the backup in an offsite location? The backup-backup should contain a pool of data that is no longer on the original drive but is kept for such purposes as this. I may be missing some piece of the puzzle here, but in the scenarios I have been involved in this was the setup and has greatly restricted the ability to lose ANY data. Of course we dealt with small businesses and may not have been subjected to such a large attack.
How are situations like this still happening?
Finally! I can make my Artificial Intelligence algorithms into a living thing!
Post-Ban of Siri
IBM Employee: "Siri?"
Siri:"Yes?"
IBM Employee: "Remind me to file for the patent on the [insert technology here], tomorrow."
Siri: "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
"remove any comments posted on his or her website by an anonymous poster unless such anonymous poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post"
So if an ANONYMOUS poster agrees to attach his or her name to the post, its okay. So all we have to do is contact an ANONYMOUS poster, correct? That should be easy! So I suppose they aren't really anonymous then, are they?
I'm not suggesting he should actually be convicted as the cause of Tyler's death. I am more-so referring to the list of 15 or so charges brought against him, although my bad joke made it impossible to see. Throw the 'cause-of-death' charge out the door and he still should have served more. Of course, try as you may, it won't make him more tolerant, but may make him a bit more careful about the actions he takes. My sarcasm can derail and provide you with the post I made above. I was making a point through a bad joke.
As for your question at the end, I'm not sure I see the difference. Maybe the world is much more intolerant than I have been willing to admit, but I just don't see a difference between whether the boy was homosexual or not.
Of course not. I was making a point about how our system seems to work and my example was not entirely accurate either. He was, however, tried with 15 charges and he got out of it rather easy. I don't believe he should be convicted as the cause of death, but he was very reckless.
I agree with you mostly because I have been witness to the example I presented and have seen it go both ways dependent on the cooperation of the defendant and the amount of prior convictions. I am also not asking he be charged with anything directly related to the suicide but there were 15 charges brought against him I believe, and if you can turn that into only 30 days, then I find something to be wrong. The way I see it, this will teach him nothing of tolerance and care. This cannot be mended through fines and jail time. I also do not have a CLUE as to what would be a proper punishment, so I suppose I should have never typed out this comment. Oh well.
:D
Sorry, I was in the process of posting an addendum to the above comment. I hoped nobody would reply before-hand. You're totally right though, but trust can (and should) go a long ways.
"Mr. Ravi was not charged with causing Mr. Clementi’s death, but the suicide hung heavily over the trial" So that means he still gets away with invasion of privacy. I suppose he should go work for Google, Apple, Facebook, etc.Hell, make that ANY company that has access to personal information!
So I can get a year in prison for having a joint on my person, but I can invade someone's privacy and become the cause of their death and just suffer a month? Interesting how that works.