...when they learned that President Trump was going to cut off all their cheap access to H-1B visa labor. They need to replace all those testers with free labor out in the community. Seems logical since so many open-source advocates spend lots of their personal time coding for free anyway....
It is bad enough when I buy something from my desktop/laptop and I start getting tons of emails (to my throwaway email account of course) from every merchant under the sun trying to get me to buy similar products. The last thing I want is for the phone app to give the merchant my phone number so that he can sell it to every call center out there. Order something on your phone...start getting cold calls from shady sellers at all hours of the day and night.
So John Podesta's fell for some phishing attack that allowed some hacker to access his account which happened to contain a treasure trove of incriminating emails from lots of people in the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and the media....and somehow that means that only one side was targeted??? I have the feeling that if some prominent Republican had also fallen for it and there were a lot of embarrassing emails in their account (i.e. not just yoga lesson schedules and wedding plans), that WikiLeaks would have ZERO hesitation in releasing them to the whole world. We have no proof that the hackers didn't try to get emails from everyone in both campaigns, but only Podesta fell for it.
If you want a table of contents it is an extra $25. A glossary is $50 per page. Just to match the outrageous prices for memory or SSD upgrades in their products.
'...with some polling experts projecting Clinton will ultimately rack up a 2 million-vote lead.' Are these the same polling experts that predicted that Clinton would comfortably win the election? No matter what the final tally will be, the popular vote winner will probably win by less than 1%. Not exactly a 'sizable lead' in my book. The EC vote tally however, gave a sizable lead to the election victor.
Were there more 'fake news' articles that were intended to benefit Trump than were intended to benefit Hillary? Was it more blatant than all the fake news that was reported constantly during the election through more traditional news channels? I have a feeling that both camps tried to get a whole bunch of fake news articles that either reported false positive news about their candidate or reported false negative news about their opponent. Now that Trump has won, those who dislike the outcome of the election want it to appear that fake news on Facebook helped him more than it helped Hillary. Is that really true, or is it just more 'fake news'?
In the old days, if you found a bad bug in production code it often meant you had to stop the assembly line of shrink-wrapped boxes filled with floppy disks or CDs and pull back everything that was unsold in the channel. If your channel was big enough, it could cost $ millions. Today, you just patch your download sites and have the running software on your customer's machine automatically download and update it sometime after hours (or even during work hours). Companies are much less hesitant to ship buggy software when they know it can be fixed later at nominal costs.
There is a big difference between opening up a browser and jumping from page to page as you follow the links; and having a mobile application ping some server for the latest NFL score so that it can update its status bar. I have tried to 'browse' the web using my phone and it is a completely different experience than doing the same thing on my desktop. What is really being measured here?
I think the U.S. spent more than that on the healthcare.gov website and it was awful. But that is what you get when politicians start throwing money at a problem. Funny, they never seem to throw it at someone who could actually help solve it. Instead it is just one of their friends who doesn't have a clue about what the problem really is, let alone be capable of finding an elegant solution.
Just about everyone else is selling a laptop with the latest i7 processor, 256GB SSD, 16 GB DDR4 RAM, and even a 17 inch screen for quite a bit less than Apple's 'lower end' laptops.
Make them a great offer and I am sure they will let you try to keep it alive. The fact that it is losing money just might be a problem for other potential buyers.
Let's see...users are willing to fork out a few hundred dollars every few years for the latest tech trinket, yet they want all their software for free. They balk at even a modest charge of $10 or $20 for something really useful. Gee...I wonder why bugs go years without anyone looking at them or features remain on the backlog for decades? If we want innovation in software, we have to be willing to pay something for it.
Oh great. Now I have to worry about my computer suing me in the future for reparations since I forced it to compile my project many times against its will. Programmers are the new plantation owners?
The telephone scammers who call me might use AI to discover that I am just yanking their chain when I tell them to hold on while I try to find my credit card...
The last thing I want (well, one of the last things I want), is for Google or anyone else to have one bit of information about me than they absolutely must have. This is why I give fake names, addresses, and phone numbers to 95% of the online 'accounts' that I have. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to 'opt out' of sharing information. The defaults of almost every application is to grab everything and beam it home to the mother ship. Even when you tell it NO, many will keep bugging you until you say yes. Every 'upgrade' will reset the defaults and if you are not paying attention, you are screwed.
...and by "ripped it apart" you really mean Congress "failed to throw boatloads of more taxpayer cash at it to keep it afloat". It did pass without a SINGLE Republican vote so there was no need to concede anything to them. Obamacare is exactly what Democrats wanted and they own it entirely. Some wanted even an more radical version (e.g. Single Payer), but they could get enough support from their own side to go an inch further.
Every time some scammer calls you. Pretend you need to answer the door or something. Ask them to hold on and you will be right back. Put the phone down and leave it for 10 minutes while you watch tv. If you are not doing anything, play with them by pretending to be hard of hearing and ask them to repeat everything 3 times. Play dumb so they have to explain everything in minute detail. WASTE THEIR TIME. If they lost money on every call, they would stop doing it. Better yet, we need someone to write a program to route their incoming scam call back to their own call center so that you are wasting the time for two of them at once until they figure out they are just talking to the guy down the hall.
I understand how some people hate software patents because of the trouble patent trolls cause by dragging everyone to court. But how do you protect the little guy who spends a lot of time and effort to build something novel only to have some big company like Microsoft or Apple steal the idea and put them out of business the minute they start to get some traction in the market? It is amazing how something becomes 'obvious' after someone builds it for the first time; yet no one did for decades after it was possible to do so. Someone can pour their life savings and years of work into getting a small startup off the ground. It is a huge risk so why would anyone do it if it can be stolen away? If you don't protect the rewards for innovation, why would you be surprised if innovation slows or stops completely?
Yet people like Bernie Sanders still thinks that if we just jacked up tax rates to 80 or 90% that the government coffers would just magically be filled to the brim since everyone would still behave the same as before the tax hike.
My thoughts exactly. I have to laugh whenever someone quotes how much the government 'lost' when taxes are reduced. They try to make it sound like you stole something from Uncle Sam just because you were able to take a new deduction or invested in a municipal bond.
Don't worry about his career. I'm sure he will be well taken care of going forward. Who knows what he has been promised in the form of cash, secret bank accounts, or a cushy, high-paying job in some 'foundation' in exchange for his loyalty.
It appears that they didn't have competent people working the IT for this private server project. Otherwise, they would know what they are doing and would have done a much better job of securing the server (both physically and electronically). They wouldn't be asking simple questions on Reddit. It sounds like when they were looking for people to do the job, competence was not the most important factor. It sounds like willingness to cover-up, lie, and stand by Hillary at all costs (including falling on their own sword) was the only requirement. Maybe they couldn't find anyone competent who was willing to do that.
I really question if HP sells printers at a loss. They are often cheap enough that I don't think they make much profit from the printer itself, but I wonder if they really suffer a loss when someone buys one and never uses it.
Slashdot Mirror
...when they learned that President Trump was going to cut off all their cheap access to H-1B visa labor. They need to replace all those testers with free labor out in the community. Seems logical since so many open-source advocates spend lots of their personal time coding for free anyway....
It is bad enough when I buy something from my desktop/laptop and I start getting tons of emails (to my throwaway email account of course) from every merchant under the sun trying to get me to buy similar products. The last thing I want is for the phone app to give the merchant my phone number so that he can sell it to every call center out there. Order something on your phone...start getting cold calls from shady sellers at all hours of the day and night.
So John Podesta's fell for some phishing attack that allowed some hacker to access his account which happened to contain a treasure trove of incriminating emails from lots of people in the Hillary campaign, the DNC, and the media....and somehow that means that only one side was targeted??? I have the feeling that if some prominent Republican had also fallen for it and there were a lot of embarrassing emails in their account (i.e. not just yoga lesson schedules and wedding plans), that WikiLeaks would have ZERO hesitation in releasing them to the whole world. We have no proof that the hackers didn't try to get emails from everyone in both campaigns, but only Podesta fell for it.
If you want a table of contents it is an extra $25. A glossary is $50 per page. Just to match the outrageous prices for memory or SSD upgrades in their products.
'...with some polling experts projecting Clinton will ultimately rack up a 2 million-vote lead.' Are these the same polling experts that predicted that Clinton would comfortably win the election? No matter what the final tally will be, the popular vote winner will probably win by less than 1%. Not exactly a 'sizable lead' in my book. The EC vote tally however, gave a sizable lead to the election victor.
Were there more 'fake news' articles that were intended to benefit Trump than were intended to benefit Hillary? Was it more blatant than all the fake news that was reported constantly during the election through more traditional news channels? I have a feeling that both camps tried to get a whole bunch of fake news articles that either reported false positive news about their candidate or reported false negative news about their opponent. Now that Trump has won, those who dislike the outcome of the election want it to appear that fake news on Facebook helped him more than it helped Hillary. Is that really true, or is it just more 'fake news'?
In the old days, if you found a bad bug in production code it often meant you had to stop the assembly line of shrink-wrapped boxes filled with floppy disks or CDs and pull back everything that was unsold in the channel. If your channel was big enough, it could cost $ millions. Today, you just patch your download sites and have the running software on your customer's machine automatically download and update it sometime after hours (or even during work hours). Companies are much less hesitant to ship buggy software when they know it can be fixed later at nominal costs.
There is a big difference between opening up a browser and jumping from page to page as you follow the links; and having a mobile application ping some server for the latest NFL score so that it can update its status bar. I have tried to 'browse' the web using my phone and it is a completely different experience than doing the same thing on my desktop. What is really being measured here?
I think the U.S. spent more than that on the healthcare.gov website and it was awful. But that is what you get when politicians start throwing money at a problem. Funny, they never seem to throw it at someone who could actually help solve it. Instead it is just one of their friends who doesn't have a clue about what the problem really is, let alone be capable of finding an elegant solution.
Just about everyone else is selling a laptop with the latest i7 processor, 256GB SSD, 16 GB DDR4 RAM, and even a 17 inch screen for quite a bit less than Apple's 'lower end' laptops.
Make them a great offer and I am sure they will let you try to keep it alive. The fact that it is losing money just might be a problem for other potential buyers.
Let's see...users are willing to fork out a few hundred dollars every few years for the latest tech trinket, yet they want all their software for free. They balk at even a modest charge of $10 or $20 for something really useful. Gee...I wonder why bugs go years without anyone looking at them or features remain on the backlog for decades? If we want innovation in software, we have to be willing to pay something for it.
Oh great. Now I have to worry about my computer suing me in the future for reparations since I forced it to compile my project many times against its will. Programmers are the new plantation owners?
I am not dead yet...or...It's just a flesh wound. The scene from Groundhog Day when the truck falls a few hundred feet and then explodes is good too.
The telephone scammers who call me might use AI to discover that I am just yanking their chain when I tell them to hold on while I try to find my credit card...
The last thing I want (well, one of the last things I want), is for Google or anyone else to have one bit of information about me than they absolutely must have. This is why I give fake names, addresses, and phone numbers to 95% of the online 'accounts' that I have. Unfortunately, it is getting harder and harder to 'opt out' of sharing information. The defaults of almost every application is to grab everything and beam it home to the mother ship. Even when you tell it NO, many will keep bugging you until you say yes. Every 'upgrade' will reset the defaults and if you are not paying attention, you are screwed.
...and by "ripped it apart" you really mean Congress "failed to throw boatloads of more taxpayer cash at it to keep it afloat". It did pass without a SINGLE Republican vote so there was no need to concede anything to them. Obamacare is exactly what Democrats wanted and they own it entirely. Some wanted even an more radical version (e.g. Single Payer), but they could get enough support from their own side to go an inch further.
Every time some scammer calls you. Pretend you need to answer the door or something. Ask them to hold on and you will be right back. Put the phone down and leave it for 10 minutes while you watch tv. If you are not doing anything, play with them by pretending to be hard of hearing and ask them to repeat everything 3 times. Play dumb so they have to explain everything in minute detail. WASTE THEIR TIME. If they lost money on every call, they would stop doing it. Better yet, we need someone to write a program to route their incoming scam call back to their own call center so that you are wasting the time for two of them at once until they figure out they are just talking to the guy down the hall.
I understand how some people hate software patents because of the trouble patent trolls cause by dragging everyone to court. But how do you protect the little guy who spends a lot of time and effort to build something novel only to have some big company like Microsoft or Apple steal the idea and put them out of business the minute they start to get some traction in the market? It is amazing how something becomes 'obvious' after someone builds it for the first time; yet no one did for decades after it was possible to do so. Someone can pour their life savings and years of work into getting a small startup off the ground. It is a huge risk so why would anyone do it if it can be stolen away? If you don't protect the rewards for innovation, why would you be surprised if innovation slows or stops completely?
That is the only explanation to the current presidential election!
Yet people like Bernie Sanders still thinks that if we just jacked up tax rates to 80 or 90% that the government coffers would just magically be filled to the brim since everyone would still behave the same as before the tax hike.
My thoughts exactly. I have to laugh whenever someone quotes how much the government 'lost' when taxes are reduced. They try to make it sound like you stole something from Uncle Sam just because you were able to take a new deduction or invested in a municipal bond.
Don't worry about his career. I'm sure he will be well taken care of going forward. Who knows what he has been promised in the form of cash, secret bank accounts, or a cushy, high-paying job in some 'foundation' in exchange for his loyalty.
It appears that they didn't have competent people working the IT for this private server project. Otherwise, they would know what they are doing and would have done a much better job of securing the server (both physically and electronically). They wouldn't be asking simple questions on Reddit. It sounds like when they were looking for people to do the job, competence was not the most important factor. It sounds like willingness to cover-up, lie, and stand by Hillary at all costs (including falling on their own sword) was the only requirement. Maybe they couldn't find anyone competent who was willing to do that.
I really question if HP sells printers at a loss. They are often cheap enough that I don't think they make much profit from the printer itself, but I wonder if they really suffer a loss when someone buys one and never uses it.