... It's a bit more complicated than that, but a donation is never an expense.
...and of course, the moment I hit save, I start thinking of exceptions. "Never" was too strong a word there. There are times donations and even gifts can be legitimately counted as expenses. This, however, is not one of them...
Probably so his department could claim to have spent all the funds and receive the same or more ammount of funding for the next year instead of having funds cut?
So they were trying to lie to another department within their own company, instead of trying to lie to the taxman. Possibly still a crime, although you're right, it's not the crime OP implied.
Also, care to point out how expenses that are actually paid out are illegitimate?
When it's not actually an expense, perhaps? If you have to falsify paperwork to justify the "expense" for a service that you already received for free... well... see your next comment...
Think before you type.
Assuming you actually tried that, you might want to look up what "expense" means, since you either didn't think, or don't understand the term. Money paid out is not necessarily an "expense". It's a bit more complicated than that, but a donation is never an expense.
Brilliant my ass. He's just a well-schooled salesman who paints himself the next Steve Jobs. Technologically inept to know 99% of the crap he's shoveling is the equivalent of The Jetsons and 1% smart enough to hire talent to tell him that 99% is bull shit, but that 1% can be feasible.
He's no Steve Jobs, true. That aside, there are millions of well-schooled salesmen, and at least thousands of them smart enough to know they need to hire talented people. But most of them you've never heard of, and will never hear of, unlike Elon Musk. So there's more to it than just that...
I'd rather have an app store full of spammy apps than one that rejects good apps for no reason (or because they compete with the manufacturer's own apps)
You may very well think that, but market forces dictate success, as noted, and the market seems to think it's better to have an app store where you can actually find useful applications because they're not buried under a mountain of crap.
Free market is market that is no manipulated by the powerful governments that have legal and or illegal authority to take away your freedoms.
Actually, a free market is a market that is not manipulated by any powerful organization. Large concentrations of economic power (e.g. monopolies) can impede the operation of free markets too. In fact, it requires government regulation to establish a free market. They cannot exist in the absence of law, and law that is enforced, to ensure their freedom. Just like individuals are not free in the absence of government -- anarchy strips away freedom from nearly everyone but the powerful few to enslave everyone else. Governments are not the only organizations that must be limited in power to protect the freedom of people, or of markets.
What you are in fact promoting is dictatorship and slavery -- you just pretend its neither when the people in charge aren't called "government".
Russia existed, but it was a very different country. For that matter, the British Empire existed, too. Neither of the countries in the comparison sprang up out of nothing, but that isn't relevant to the point being made. The USSR was radically different from the government and economic system of what came before. (And although the USA was organized somewhat differently from the parliamentary democracy is broke away from, it retained much of the same system, laws, and basic concepts -- in reality, the USA had a much, much bigger head start than OP implied...)
I didn't go there. Too young I guess. I do remember when you could be arrested for refusing to spy on your fellow citizens in the Soviet Union when asked, so that's where my mind went. There's a difference, of course. That was the KGB, this is the NSA. Not a single letter in common...
The practical upshot of this is, Firefox's way is better if you enjoy security theatre, and Chrome's way is better if you think it's best for the browser to not fool its users into thinking they're more secure than they actually are.
So that being said, I still believe even if Firefox's way isn't the most secure, at least it is way better than what Chrome is doing. Hell if it was Microsoft's IE doing it, we wouldn't be having this conversation I believe.
Are you saying if it was IE, you wouldn't be arguing what you're arguing? I know Google is the new Microsoft on/. these days, but Microsoft is still Microsoft, too. People would be just as quick to pile on IE as they are on Chrome here, and I'd be just as compelled to point out the flaws in the arguments, because bad information is bad, even if the person using it is using it to attack something I don't like. If it was Firefox, now, then you're right, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but only because the blogger would never have written the article with it's incoherent attack in the first place, and if they did, the/. editors would have been critical enough to not run it. But MS or Google? Sure, the argument's incoherent, but someone wrote Chrome/IE/whatever-the-new-favorite-whipping-boy-is is bad, let's pile on!
It points out what apparently isn't obvious to a lot of people: those passwords in the other browsers aren't safe, either (otherwise Chrome wouldn't be able to easily import them). Chrome just doesn't hide the fact that the passwords are available to anyone who can sit down in front of your logged in computer. The blogger is upset that Chrome doesn't hide the truth of the matter...
Google's rationalization that the system is already insecure if someone else has physical access to it is absurd. That's like saying it's ok for a bank to leave everyone's money on the counter overnight because if someone breaks in then that same person can easily break into the vault, which is obviously not the case. Computer systems should have multiple levels of protection as well.
Poor analogy. Although breaking into a vault isn't impossible, it does add significant difficulty to obtaining the money, even after breaking into the bank. Indeed, breaking into the bank is the easy part compared to breaking into the vault.
In your analogy, you're adding a significant barrier (breaking into the vault) on top of a much less significant one (breaking into the building). In the case of my browser passwords, someone who's gotten physical access to my computer while I'm logged into it has already scaled a much bigger barrier than hiding the "show passwords" button presents. It's taking the money already in the vault and saying putting it in a child-proof plastic bin is making the money safer than simply keeping it in the vault. Possibly technically true, but really not worth the hassle at that point. The attacker that's in the vault is going to get the money if they want it, the plastic bin isn't actually helping...
There are things like private/public key encryption you know.
Yes, and if you understood how public key encryption works, you'd realize its existence is not relevant to the discussion at hand. It has no useful function here. (Note: your "master password" is not a private key of this sort -- no hand entered password ever could be... unless you're Lt. Cmdr. Data.)
You can secure this in Firefox, there is no option to do so in Chrome.
You mean Firefox engages in a bit of security theater that Chrome does not. As a result, people who don't know any better are mislead into believing the falsehood that "you can secure this in Firefox", whereas people in Chrome can see the truth of the matter.
That's extremely easy to correct for. It's interesting to note that the data, which does include political affiliations of the respondents, showed a decline in gun ownership among Republican households up to 2006 (although a slight decline, compared to a much larger decline among Democratic households), but the trend has reversed since 2008. I saw a lot of "get your guns now, Obama's comin' to take them away" scare-sale tactics used in 2008. Apparently, they were quite a smart marketing move that proved successful.
The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center. NPR listening, democrat voting, pro-choice, not interested in NASCAR or truck pulls, do not believe Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate, are not members of the Klan, have mufflers on their motorcycles...
That accords with my personal experience. Except for the NASCAR part -- my father was a big NASCAR fan and I was into it for a while. The rest definitely fits, though. Throw strong pro-union activist into that, too. A lot of the safety improvements at my old work were a result of my dad's activism and years as union VP. Although it was my ultra-feminist mother who was the biggest gun-nut in the family. She owned more guns than the rest of us combined. xD
I'll admit that I used to be a regular xkcd reader. I checked out this article as "Time" seemed like it could be interesting. I was wrong. It's the same nonsense that I and others outgrew years ago.
People's interests change over time. They get bored with some things and move on. But trolls like to use the word "outgrew" to try to offend current fans, and particularly immature people view these sorts of continuous, inevitable shifts in interests over time as signs of increasing maturity on their own part, not so much to offend anyone, but as a way of making themselves feel superior. Often then aren't smart enough to realize that's what they're doing.
(Yes, in case it wasn't obvious, the irony is intentional...)
Slashdot Mirror
Of course to be politically correct they should have had some womannequins as well. ;-)
Wouldn't that be "womennequin"? ;)
... It's a bit more complicated than that, but a donation is never an expense.
...and of course, the moment I hit save, I start thinking of exceptions. "Never" was too strong a word there. There are times donations and even gifts can be legitimately counted as expenses. This, however, is not one of them...
Probably so his department could claim to have spent all the funds and receive the same or more ammount of funding for the next year instead of having funds cut?
So they were trying to lie to another department within their own company, instead of trying to lie to the taxman. Possibly still a crime, although you're right, it's not the crime OP implied.
Also, care to point out how expenses that are actually paid out are illegitimate?
When it's not actually an expense, perhaps? If you have to falsify paperwork to justify the "expense" for a service that you already received for free... well... see your next comment...
Think before you type.
Assuming you actually tried that, you might want to look up what "expense" means, since you either didn't think, or don't understand the term. Money paid out is not necessarily an "expense". It's a bit more complicated than that, but a donation is never an expense.
Brilliant my ass. He's just a well-schooled salesman who paints himself the next Steve Jobs. Technologically inept to know 99% of the crap he's shoveling is the equivalent of The Jetsons and 1% smart enough to hire talent to tell him that 99% is bull shit, but that 1% can be feasible.
He's no Steve Jobs, true. That aside, there are millions of well-schooled salesmen, and at least thousands of them smart enough to know they need to hire talented people. But most of them you've never heard of, and will never hear of, unlike Elon Musk. So there's more to it than just that...
I'd rather have an app store full of spammy apps than one that rejects good apps for no reason (or because they compete with the manufacturer's own apps)
You may very well think that, but market forces dictate success, as noted, and the market seems to think it's better to have an app store where you can actually find useful applications because they're not buried under a mountain of crap.
Free market is market that is no manipulated by the powerful governments that have legal and or illegal authority to take away your freedoms.
Actually, a free market is a market that is not manipulated by any powerful organization. Large concentrations of economic power (e.g. monopolies) can impede the operation of free markets too. In fact, it requires government regulation to establish a free market. They cannot exist in the absence of law, and law that is enforced, to ensure their freedom. Just like individuals are not free in the absence of government -- anarchy strips away freedom from nearly everyone but the powerful few to enslave everyone else. Governments are not the only organizations that must be limited in power to protect the freedom of people, or of markets.
What you are in fact promoting is dictatorship and slavery -- you just pretend its neither when the people in charge aren't called "government".
Russia existed, but it was a very different country. For that matter, the British Empire existed, too. Neither of the countries in the comparison sprang up out of nothing, but that isn't relevant to the point being made. The USSR was radically different from the government and economic system of what came before. (And although the USA was organized somewhat differently from the parliamentary democracy is broke away from, it retained much of the same system, laws, and basic concepts -- in reality, the USA had a much, much bigger head start than OP implied...)
Only a tiny bit-brain concludes that if there is tension between two concepts then they are mutually exclusive.
I didn't go there. Too young I guess. I do remember when you could be arrested for refusing to spy on your fellow citizens in the Soviet Union when asked, so that's where my mind went. There's a difference, of course. That was the KGB, this is the NSA. Not a single letter in common...
There seems to be this believe among commune-hippie-types that grouping a bunch of people together towards a shared goal makes them evil.
Your superiority over the straw men in your self-constructed world is assured...
Firefox: "Please enter the master password."
The practical upshot of this is, Firefox's way is better if you enjoy security theatre, and Chrome's way is better if you think it's best for the browser to not fool its users into thinking they're more secure than they actually are.
So that being said, I still believe even if Firefox's way isn't the most secure, at least it is way better than what Chrome is doing. Hell if it was Microsoft's IE doing it, we wouldn't be having this conversation I believe.
Are you saying if it was IE, you wouldn't be arguing what you're arguing? I know Google is the new Microsoft on /. these days, but Microsoft is still Microsoft, too. People would be just as quick to pile on IE as they are on Chrome here, and I'd be just as compelled to point out the flaws in the arguments, because bad information is bad, even if the person using it is using it to attack something I don't like. If it was Firefox, now, then you're right, we wouldn't be having this conversation, but only because the blogger would never have written the article with it's incoherent attack in the first place, and if they did, the /. editors would have been critical enough to not run it. But MS or Google? Sure, the argument's incoherent, but someone wrote Chrome/IE/whatever-the-new-favorite-whipping-boy-is is bad, let's pile on!
It points out what apparently isn't obvious to a lot of people: those passwords in the other browsers aren't safe, either (otherwise Chrome wouldn't be able to easily import them). Chrome just doesn't hide the fact that the passwords are available to anyone who can sit down in front of your logged in computer. The blogger is upset that Chrome doesn't hide the truth of the matter...
Google's rationalization that the system is already insecure if someone else has physical access to it is absurd. That's like saying it's ok for a bank to leave everyone's money on the counter overnight because if someone breaks in then that same person can easily break into the vault, which is obviously not the case. Computer systems should have multiple levels of protection as well.
Poor analogy. Although breaking into a vault isn't impossible, it does add significant difficulty to obtaining the money, even after breaking into the bank. Indeed, breaking into the bank is the easy part compared to breaking into the vault.
In your analogy, you're adding a significant barrier (breaking into the vault) on top of a much less significant one (breaking into the building). In the case of my browser passwords, someone who's gotten physical access to my computer while I'm logged into it has already scaled a much bigger barrier than hiding the "show passwords" button presents. It's taking the money already in the vault and saying putting it in a child-proof plastic bin is making the money safer than simply keeping it in the vault. Possibly technically true, but really not worth the hassle at that point. The attacker that's in the vault is going to get the money if they want it, the plastic bin isn't actually helping...
There are things like private/public key encryption you know.
Yes, and if you understood how public key encryption works, you'd realize its existence is not relevant to the discussion at hand. It has no useful function here. (Note: your "master password" is not a private key of this sort -- no hand entered password ever could be... unless you're Lt. Cmdr. Data.)
You can secure this in Firefox, there is no option to do so in Chrome.
You mean Firefox engages in a bit of security theater that Chrome does not. As a result, people who don't know any better are mislead into believing the falsehood that "you can secure this in Firefox", whereas people in Chrome can see the truth of the matter.
That's extremely easy to correct for. It's interesting to note that the data, which does include political affiliations of the respondents, showed a decline in gun ownership among Republican households up to 2006 (although a slight decline, compared to a much larger decline among Democratic households), but the trend has reversed since 2008. I saw a lot of "get your guns now, Obama's comin' to take them away" scare-sale tactics used in 2008. Apparently, they were quite a smart marketing move that proved successful.
The vast majority of gun owners I know are somewhat left of center. NPR listening, democrat voting, pro-choice, not interested in NASCAR or truck pulls, do not believe Obama has a Kenyan birth certificate, are not members of the Klan, have mufflers on their motorcycles...
That accords with my personal experience. Except for the NASCAR part -- my father was a big NASCAR fan and I was into it for a while. The rest definitely fits, though. Throw strong pro-union activist into that, too. A lot of the safety improvements at my old work were a result of my dad's activism and years as union VP. Although it was my ultra-feminist mother who was the biggest gun-nut in the family. She owned more guns than the rest of us combined. xD
Gold of course.
Expecting a cyberman invasion?
How complicated does a toilet need to be?
This is Japan we're talking about. A toilet requires a 38-button control panel with a liquid-crystal display. I wish I was joking...
...the apps is just an Android front end of Office 365 and is accessible only by the paid users.
More such victories and we are undone.
Back in the days, when slashdot...
That's a bit of an obvious troll coming from someone with a seven digit UID... :p
I'll admit that I used to be a regular xkcd reader. I checked out this article as "Time" seemed like it could be interesting. I was wrong. It's the same nonsense that I and others outgrew years ago.
People's interests change over time. They get bored with some things and move on. But trolls like to use the word "outgrew" to try to offend current fans, and particularly immature people view these sorts of continuous, inevitable shifts in interests over time as signs of increasing maturity on their own part, not so much to offend anyone, but as a way of making themselves feel superior. Often then aren't smart enough to realize that's what they're doing.
(Yes, in case it wasn't obvious, the irony is intentional...)
...
I don't click on stories that don't interest me. That'd be an utterly stupid waste of time. Moreso to take the time to comment on them.
It feels like the designer of the headline wanted to leave the possibility for misinterpretation in the sake of little trolling.
Welcome to /. ;)