There were EULAs before the practice of displaying these on-screen during installation and/or first use. The install media and, often, a book of some degree were shrinkwrapped. Adhered to this would be the EULA. Breaking the seal meant acceptance. For preloaded software installed by OEMs, there were [always] EULAs somewhere a!ong the package contents, and use of the purchased computer implied acceptance.
A downside in this context to mapping your special folders to non standard paths is that these paths become the special folders. I have long done this and do so with a separate partition. I suspect the apparent bug would have killed the data just the same regardless of where "Documents/My Documents/Personal" points, because it isn't the path tbhat is targeted; it is the alias that represents what is in use for the logged-in user.
Correct. Wires are pretty easy to sufficiently protect through physical barriers that aren't easily breached without noise and adherence to smart policy. Like most things in need of securing, network and network attached devices require a multi prong approach. And similarly to all security implementations, the one that Google may have employed along this with door lock/access management solution would have been defeated by those sufficiently motivated even without its bad design.
No they don't. There is right and wrong and will always be. Knowingly exploiting someone's trust, ignorance, and/or other disadvantages is in in the "wrong" column just in case you can't tell. Is it okay for me to take the bike off your porch when I find that you failed to lock it up. Of course, it isn't.
Clearly, the door access/lock system has or had design problems and needs these properly addressed. It's presence was made worse by poor network security. It should have been on a dedicated network and certainly not on the general LAN/VLAN. This guy had access to the network and shouldn't have unless the poking around was blessed.
And, that is EXACTLY how it should be. I have the right to sell my labor to the highest bidder. The companies have the right to seek the workers who are willing to work for the least. Unions are nothing but an extortionist mob.
This might be fine if the power held by the employer and employee/applicant is matched. It is not and rarely, if ever, is. The VAST majority of roles within our societies are not so specialized that only one person is available for an opening or position-already-held at any one time. Also, our society doesn't need and wouldn't be supported by all jobs being so specialized. Given that there is always more than one person able to do and interested in doing the work, the real power is always in the employer's hands. This leads to exploitation since the vast majority of people work first out of practical need and these folks can't just refuse to accept something less ideal endlessly until the ideal job comes along. This is even less of an option due to few people having the luxury of incomes that support being so picky. The basic idea of the union is evening out the power in order to protect the worker from exploitation. All parties need to be reasonable.
Sure enough! The attempted theft and death did happen July 22, 1995. It has been a long time. Yet, I do remember some of the people referenced. Hmmm... I am surprised that I don't remember the event.
I don't remember this happening. I was among the crew that opened the new store and only store in Spartanburg in mid July 1995 and remained an employee through August 1997. I mostly worked in the computer department during my stay. This isn't something that could have been kept under wrap.
Because the masses are "stupid" is precisely why, in many cases, systems should be designed to auto-purge. Actually, many other design changes should be made. The masses don't understand the true implications of much of what they agree to, especially those long-term. Sufficient foresight must had in a case like this for the person to know that they will eventually need to unregister when parting with the car. They will then need to remember to do this.
There must be support in the law to support mechanisms such as captcha, because I often see them when using Google Search and other websites. Its either this or there is little risk to the operator of legal action.
I suspect presenting captchas in a pseudo-random distribution where, say, 20% of tweets get hit at any given time would do a lot to shut down non human usage. The more a party tweets, the more likely he, she, or it is to see a captcha.
And a change in thei revenue model to one where the users trade cash for the software they develop at a price that is fair for both parties all without the data collection backed "free" pricing model bullshit. I wish we'd move beyond the free model for most things. Free never is, and I don't like the true price we pay companies now.
Spending wads of cash on legal action, especially for an eventually lost fight, leads to higher pricing and cost reductions. So, I'd rather they just give up now.
I think it is okay to dock points for those doing shitty things while still playing by the rules. Just because the rules allow one to cut off another person's foot does mean it is okay to do so.
Why would anyone recycle if there was no value in it?
Selfish people don't get the value in reducing, reuse, and recycling, because this requires an long-term view. It requires consideration for others that are here today and that are to come. A side from this, those of us lucky enough to have real choice can choose to do something that is best for society even when it isn't best for us, especially in the moment. We can choose to do something that is good for the planet and the other creatures and plants with which we share it. Now, we can, instead, still be selfish assholes and live differently to do our part to make the planet a better place now and in the future for just those that we care about, our families and friends' families. We can be even more selfish by doing what we can now to protect the world we'll be living in as we age. It will just be better for society and the planet for us to do more by not being so selfish. I have little faith in mankind despite our potential to be better. Actually, I see little potential as I believe humans' selfishness is too deeply ingrained.
The western world has had plenty of time to adapt. The problem is our allowing money to dictate policy and price. We have been able ship our waste on to other people and their territories all along and keep consuming without paying the true price of said consumption. With virgin sources of plastic and other first-use resources being cheaper, we have not yet been forced by "free markets" to adapt. Landfills will be our only exploitable "natural resources" one day. Re-use, recycling, and reduction will be the only practical option for all but the wealthy in time if we're still here.
2020 is when we'll vote again for president. Plenty of down ticket elections are coming up beforehand, and people need to get off their asses and then down to their respective voting precinct to help decide these. The down ticket contests matter so much more long-term as it is their winners that are in the pipeline for gaining more power down the road.
While that "particular" student may have still been a webcam girl for the easy money, many and probably most only do it out of necessity in order to cover the expenses during a time when working while a full-time student for enough money is tough. So, a significant reduction in the cost of college saves at least these chics.
Don't forget that progress is subjective and change for the sake of change isn't a smart approach. AT&T was and is only protecting their revenue stream and access to profit. Google was investing in hopes of establishing a profit generating revernue stream. Neither give a shit about progress.
Comcast probably will stop this just as the Private Sector keeps doing when the municipalities attempt to build out infrastructure in much the same way and for much the same reason.
A salary field with support for only numbers is not a field where 'All of it, but negotiable' can be entered. In my experience over the past two years, past and desired salary fields are very common, and a value greater than zero must be entered is often required. i suspect applicants are filtered very quickly and, often, automatically by what is entered.
I'll admit that I was commenting in the moment more on the larger topic and less so specifically to what you had written. I apologize for this. With that said, I believe consumers don't ever reap savings. The C-Suite and shareholders simply take more. Even if prices do drop, the consumer is getting less to support the lower price. Even if the widget or service remains the same and the profit margin changes instead, it is the workers along the way that suffer eventually to support the lower pricing. Ultimately, the consumer still hurts.
Now, let's look at this differently. Consider how little time it takes to drop a package on my front porch with little more than a ring of the doorbell or knock on the door before the delivery person runs back to the truck for the next stop. UPS and FedEx will charge the shipper more if they become subject to a process that requires them to place the package in a lock box if it takes more time.
Slashdot Mirror
There were EULAs before the practice of displaying these on-screen during installation and/or first use. The install media and, often, a book of some degree were shrinkwrapped. Adhered to this would be the EULA. Breaking the seal meant acceptance. For preloaded software installed by OEMs, there were [always] EULAs somewhere a!ong the package contents, and use of the purchased computer implied acceptance.
A downside in this context to mapping your special folders to non standard paths is that these paths become the special folders. I have long done this and do so with a separate partition. I suspect the apparent bug would have killed the data just the same regardless of where "Documents/My Documents/Personal" points, because it isn't the path tbhat is targeted; it is the alias that represents what is in use for the logged-in user.
Yep! See my years old signature below!
Correct. Wires are pretty easy to sufficiently protect through physical barriers that aren't easily breached without noise and adherence to smart policy. Like most things in need of securing, network and network attached devices require a multi prong approach. And similarly to all security implementations, the one that Google may have employed along this with door lock/access management solution would have been defeated by those sufficiently motivated even without its bad design.
No they don't. There is right and wrong and will always be. Knowingly exploiting someone's trust, ignorance, and/or other disadvantages is in in the "wrong" column just in case you can't tell. Is it okay for me to take the bike off your porch when I find that you failed to lock it up. Of course, it isn't.
Clearly, the door access/lock system has or had design problems and needs these properly addressed. It's presence was made worse by poor network security. It should have been on a dedicated network and certainly not on the general LAN/VLAN. This guy had access to the network and shouldn't have unless the poking around was blessed.
This might be fine if the power held by the employer and employee/applicant is matched. It is not and rarely, if ever, is. The VAST majority of roles within our societies are not so specialized that only one person is available for an opening or position-already-held at any one time. Also, our society doesn't need and wouldn't be supported by all jobs being so specialized. Given that there is always more than one person able to do and interested in doing the work, the real power is always in the employer's hands. This leads to exploitation since the vast majority of people work first out of practical need and these folks can't just refuse to accept something less ideal endlessly until the ideal job comes along. This is even less of an option due to few people having the luxury of incomes that support being so picky. The basic idea of the union is evening out the power in order to protect the worker from exploitation. All parties need to be reasonable.
Sure enough! The attempted theft and death did happen July 22, 1995. It has been a long time. Yet, I do remember some of the people referenced. Hmmm... I am surprised that I don't remember the event.
http://www.goupstate.com/artic...
I don't remember this happening. I was among the crew that opened the new store and only store in Spartanburg in mid July 1995 and remained an employee through August 1997. I mostly worked in the computer department during my stay. This isn't something that could have been kept under wrap.
Because the masses are "stupid" is precisely why, in many cases, systems should be designed to auto-purge. Actually, many other design changes should be made. The masses don't understand the true implications of much of what they agree to, especially those long-term. Sufficient foresight must had in a case like this for the person to know that they will eventually need to unregister when parting with the car. They will then need to remember to do this.
There must be support in the law to support mechanisms such as captcha, because I often see them when using Google Search and other websites. Its either this or there is little risk to the operator of legal action.
I suspect presenting captchas in a pseudo-random distribution where, say, 20% of tweets get hit at any given time would do a lot to shut down non human usage. The more a party tweets, the more likely he, she, or it is to see a captcha.
This is funny and creative too. Where are the mods for this one?
This is funny and creative. Where are the mods?
And a change in thei revenue model to one where the users trade cash for the software they develop at a price that is fair for both parties all without the data collection backed "free" pricing model bullshit. I wish we'd move beyond the free model for most things. Free never is, and I don't like the true price we pay companies now.
Spending wads of cash on legal action, especially for an eventually lost fight, leads to higher pricing and cost reductions. So, I'd rather they just give up now.
I think it is okay to dock points for those doing shitty things while still playing by the rules. Just because the rules allow one to cut off another person's foot does mean it is okay to do so.
Selfish people don't get the value in reducing, reuse, and recycling, because this requires an long-term view. It requires consideration for others that are here today and that are to come. A side from this, those of us lucky enough to have real choice can choose to do something that is best for society even when it isn't best for us, especially in the moment. We can choose to do something that is good for the planet and the other creatures and plants with which we share it. Now, we can, instead, still be selfish assholes and live differently to do our part to make the planet a better place now and in the future for just those that we care about, our families and friends' families. We can be even more selfish by doing what we can now to protect the world we'll be living in as we age. It will just be better for society and the planet for us to do more by not being so selfish. I have little faith in mankind despite our potential to be better. Actually, I see little potential as I believe humans' selfishness is too deeply ingrained.
The western world has had plenty of time to adapt. The problem is our allowing money to dictate policy and price. We have been able ship our waste on to other people and their territories all along and keep consuming without paying the true price of said consumption. With virgin sources of plastic and other first-use resources being cheaper, we have not yet been forced by "free markets" to adapt. Landfills will be our only exploitable "natural resources" one day. Re-use, recycling, and reduction will be the only practical option for all but the wealthy in time if we're still here.
2020 is when we'll vote again for president. Plenty of down ticket elections are coming up beforehand, and people need to get off their asses and then down to their respective voting precinct to help decide these. The down ticket contests matter so much more long-term as it is their winners that are in the pipeline for gaining more power down the road.
While that "particular" student may have still been a webcam girl for the easy money, many and probably most only do it out of necessity in order to cover the expenses during a time when working while a full-time student for enough money is tough. So, a significant reduction in the cost of college saves at least these chics.
Don't forget that progress is subjective and change for the sake of change isn't a smart approach. AT&T was and is only protecting their revenue stream and access to profit. Google was investing in hopes of establishing a profit generating revernue stream. Neither give a shit about progress.
Comcast probably will stop this just as the Private Sector keeps doing when the municipalities attempt to build out infrastructure in much the same way and for much the same reason.
A salary field with support for only numbers is not a field where 'All of it, but negotiable' can be entered. In my experience over the past two years, past and desired salary fields are very common, and a value greater than zero must be entered is often required. i suspect applicants are filtered very quickly and, often, automatically by what is entered.
I'll admit that I was commenting in the moment more on the larger topic and less so specifically to what you had written. I apologize for this. With that said, I believe consumers don't ever reap savings. The C-Suite and shareholders simply take more. Even if prices do drop, the consumer is getting less to support the lower price. Even if the widget or service remains the same and the profit margin changes instead, it is the workers along the way that suffer eventually to support the lower pricing. Ultimately, the consumer still hurts.
Now, let's look at this differently. Consider how little time it takes to drop a package on my front porch with little more than a ring of the doorbell or knock on the door before the delivery person runs back to the truck for the next stop. UPS and FedEx will charge the shipper more if they become subject to a process that requires them to place the package in a lock box if it takes more time.