I don't see a problem with formal agreements, documented exchanges, fair handling, but give it five minutes. Five minutes. At which point we look back and have to be realistic about how clean the market really is after five minutes.
This doesn't just mean straight up black market cloak and dagger, I mean gray activity. The entire USA medical industry is a bloated abomination of gray going-ons, for example. Want a closer one? Organs.
Some STILL won't care. Their business with you is a cozy exchange of cash and connectivity, easy money for little effort in most areas. They're more worried about that than lip service requisite to tell courts "Fuck off, we just sell connectivity."
Shit, even the harassment agency might not care. The ISP says "Yes, letter sent, shoo." and the HA gets to put a Confirmed tick mark on the metrics their broker can wave around.
Then they can tell the fleeced studio "We protected you from $800,000 in potential damages, so our contract is a big win for you! Sign here for another year!" and, of course, spin the same noise to prospective clients.
Gain increased readability and clarity of actions involved, with little bloat cost. Bloat and inefficiency are from reckless calls and libraries and imports and poor design, often a result of lazy/inept design.
lol who cares phones have 4GB RAM anyway who cares the web container can run 16GB anyway, if the user doesn't have that much how is that my problem get an i7 faggots stop living in 2014.
Why WOULDN'T everyone record everything? Every possibly loggable metric in your service, software, app, whatever.
Even if the data isn't useful, even if you haven't (yet) hired analytics to "leverage further growth", you scoop everything up and dump it in a box.
I'm not here to say it's malicious or even a bad thing, I'm here to make it clear that expecting otherwise is naive at best. "It's just good business."
This is how I see cheats. But for a serious answer, if it only takes a dollar to permanently recalibrate a game's artificially-inflated grinds (they know exactly what they're fucking doing) back to par, you get tempted.
That's a generous example, usually the game is more bullshit than that and it's best to walk away.
Statistically lower. There are talented women, I work with some, I defer where their expertise is more specialized than my own. But they're outnumbered, because apparently the reality is males have, as of writing, higher technical score per applicant capita.
If true (wow this post is hedged) that's not a problem in itself - it can be argued it's a SYMPTOM of a problem, upstream. But if you want the pools to have equal yields you might need to force equal interest, and that means even more conversations, which I can't even be assed to touch on in this post.
I think surveillance of persons of interest is a good idea.
Unfortunately that sentence only works in a vacuum and in practice we fuck it up. Examples on the top of my head:
- The surveillance must be legal, not today's clusterfucks and dragnets, get a warrant where necessary
- POIs should be scrutinized during their window, and the scrutiny NOT parceled out. We have enough allegation bullshit, a SUPERFLUOUS, abundance-of-caution lookout should NOT get his name highlighted in red for every database between here and Frank's Hot Dog Stand. Indefinitely.
- Profiling, stereotyping, etc. is an old story but one more reason we suck at keeping an eye on the real bad guys.
If we could magically learn how to fix that and only keep harmless tabs on known radicals (not someone who googled "pressure cooker bomb" out of curiosity) I'd be game. Discrete tabs - every time someone asks "What are we doing about X?!?" they're asking what the terrorist caused, their "reward" if you like. The mark is watched silently, for duration of X no longer than Y (can be extended repeatedly) then case closed.
>will quickly hide it at -1
They're doing Canada a favor. A guy running around yelling "CANADA RULES, US/EU DROOLS" on the internet sounds like a national embarrassment.
This is why many of us flip our shit over a slashdot video with no transcript.
After a lifetime of text anyone should be able to wield it efficiently. "Speed reading" is really just targeted skimming, scoping out where the good info is and chewing on those areas, so you can ignore all the "HI I'M JAMIE WITH TECHCHANNELNOW AND I'M HERE WITH GARY, A NETWORK ADMIN AT NOVELL SYSTEMS, GARY WHY DON'T YOU TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF"
I dunno, they seem inspired as fuck to find clever workarounds, like exemption towards data caps. I'm sure they're innovating like crazy in thinktanks even now. But thinking is haaaaaard.
Not that I have a horse in the race. I don't stream video, I don't really smartphone roam (or at all), I'm not really in their crosshairs.
Not if we magically uninvent weapons down to sharpened sticks.
Since we can't: Weapons exist. They can't be uninvented. Determined actors will find something. A "workaround", if you like. Humans congregate often, daily, and like every second of their life they Will. Be. Vulnerable.
There's only two realities up there that aren't hard, irreversible, immutable fact, two theoretically possible sliders: (1) The amount of human congregation (not gonna change); and (2) the emergence rate of determined actors. That's also unlikely to change, but we arguably can control it. A lot of the arguing is about how. Education, cultural paradigm, mental healthcare, the like.
It might seem like an indirect and not terribly potent change vector, but it's the only one that isn't WHAT IS THE [city/country/police/president] DOING ABOUT IT theater for infants in need of pacifiers.
I will go out of my way to point out that I'm addressing mass killings specifically and set aside discussion of things like unintentional killing or crime rates, which may or may not mean options for trying to alleviate things umbrella style.
They're all over this. They're carefully standing in front of light sources so when they make the front page they're literally glowing. The emergency response system did this - I don't see AT&T or Verizon posturing and saying "we're just so glad that we were able to help".
But the moment anyone catches the smell of potential liability they'll boilerplate about 911 services so fast your head'll spin. "Wait, no, don't do this, it's a bad thing now, not a good thing."
It turns out most circumstances are beyond our control. Effort, merit, integrity, these have influence but are absolutely dwarfed. When you hear "it's not what you know" that's not a fucking joke.
Your social status, your career, your resilience and protections against bullshit and exploitation from outside (corporate, gov, etc) are largely determined by the time you draw your ovarian lottery ticket. Sometimes lightning and meteors pick suckers in an obvious manner, it's easy to recognize the universe at work there. Most of the time fate's grip is more subtle, yet still throttling. You can fight it, but to the insignificant level available to your influence. By definition not everysucker will come out well.
It's ugly, but what can you do? It turns out that many Magic: The Gathering (insert luck game of choice) outcomes are determined before players even look at their opening hands. The performance is meaningless. All your skill and cunning and foresight and opponent-reading, meaningless against how the deck was stacked. Struggle all you want, only so much flex exists in the hand you were dealt. Pro play invests heavily in trying (to the degree possible) to repel the game's biggest threat - chance.
I have no illusions about my blessings, or whatever you call them. I was lucky from the moment I was born first-world country; everyone in the Golden Billion was. I "work hard" and "earned" some stuff, but I know better than to credit my ego with everything in my life. Partly because I'm not a self-deluding arrogant fuckwit, partly because ego like that seems the sort of thing that tempts fate. God. Whatever.
OT: Acronyms are the only safe future of passwords. Nursery rhyme becomes "rrrybgdts".
Now I'm no fancy technology expert, but I've consulted major doctorate scientists who have informed me that the overwhelming usage for people employing encryption schemes is to in fact support a deliberate intent to hide something, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see a problem with formal agreements, documented exchanges, fair handling, but give it five minutes. Five minutes. At which point we look back and have to be realistic about how clean the market really is after five minutes.
This doesn't just mean straight up black market cloak and dagger, I mean gray activity. The entire USA medical industry is a bloated abomination of gray going-ons, for example. Want a closer one? Organs.
Some STILL won't care. Their business with you is a cozy exchange of cash and connectivity, easy money for little effort in most areas. They're more worried about that than lip service requisite to tell courts "Fuck off, we just sell connectivity."
Shit, even the harassment agency might not care. The ISP says "Yes, letter sent, shoo." and the HA gets to put a Confirmed tick mark on the metrics their broker can wave around.
Then they can tell the fleeced studio "We protected you from $800,000 in potential damages, so our contract is a big win for you! Sign here for another year!" and, of course, spin the same noise to prospective clients.
Overcoding > Undercoding
Gain increased readability and clarity of actions involved, with little bloat cost. Bloat and inefficiency are from reckless calls and libraries and imports and poor design, often a result of lazy/inept design.
lol who cares phones have 4GB RAM anyway who cares the web container can run 16GB anyway, if the user doesn't have that much how is that my problem get an i7 faggots stop living in 2014.
Why WOULDN'T everyone record everything? Every possibly loggable metric in your service, software, app, whatever.
Even if the data isn't useful, even if you haven't (yet) hired analytics to "leverage further growth", you scoop everything up and dump it in a box.
I'm not here to say it's malicious or even a bad thing, I'm here to make it clear that expecting otherwise is naive at best. "It's just good business."
Half the garbage that goes through the patent office is shit we have and can look at.
Imaginary Property is, non-figuratively, the adult version of calling dibs.
I see you're trying to shut something down. Would you like some help with that?
[_] Because terrorism
[_] Because drugs
[_] Because for the children
[X] I'm going to use some other shit that won't work as well as those
This is how I see cheats. But for a serious answer, if it only takes a dollar to permanently recalibrate a game's artificially-inflated grinds (they know exactly what they're fucking doing) back to par, you get tempted.
That's a generous example, usually the game is more bullshit than that and it's best to walk away.
Anyone who knows the ecosystem knows it translates into "skip timers/grinds" or "pay to win".
I'm not even saying those in a bitter tone, those are pretty much the well-known, widely understood foundations of freemium.
"Nonsense, haven't you heard? Automation makes new jobs! Don't be a luddite! Look, Hostess is hiring people left and-"
*aide interrupts to whisper briefly* "Oh, 'firing'?"
I don't have much opinion on if you think that I would say I think why that would matter.
Statistically lower. There are talented women, I work with some, I defer where their expertise is more specialized than my own. But they're outnumbered, because apparently the reality is males have, as of writing, higher technical score per applicant capita.
If true (wow this post is hedged) that's not a problem in itself - it can be argued it's a SYMPTOM of a problem, upstream. But if you want the pools to have equal yields you might need to force equal interest, and that means even more conversations, which I can't even be assed to touch on in this post.
I think surveillance of persons of interest is a good idea.
Unfortunately that sentence only works in a vacuum and in practice we fuck it up. Examples on the top of my head:
- The surveillance must be legal, not today's clusterfucks and dragnets, get a warrant where necessary
- POIs should be scrutinized during their window, and the scrutiny NOT parceled out. We have enough allegation bullshit, a SUPERFLUOUS, abundance-of-caution lookout should NOT get his name highlighted in red for every database between here and Frank's Hot Dog Stand. Indefinitely.
- Profiling, stereotyping, etc. is an old story but one more reason we suck at keeping an eye on the real bad guys.
If we could magically learn how to fix that and only keep harmless tabs on known radicals (not someone who googled "pressure cooker bomb" out of curiosity) I'd be game. Discrete tabs - every time someone asks "What are we doing about X?!?" they're asking what the terrorist caused, their "reward" if you like. The mark is watched silently, for duration of X no longer than Y (can be extended repeatedly) then case closed.
While the words in your sentence are accurate, the behavior of RLC owners isn't exactly a beacon of legal compliance.
>will quickly hide it at -1
They're doing Canada a favor. A guy running around yelling "CANADA RULES, US/EU DROOLS" on the internet sounds like a national embarrassment.
Can you imagine the number of times the phrase "they'll buy it anyway" was spoken during all the stages involved?
This is why many of us flip our shit over a slashdot video with no transcript.
After a lifetime of text anyone should be able to wield it efficiently. "Speed reading" is really just targeted skimming, scoping out where the good info is and chewing on those areas, so you can ignore all the "HI I'M JAMIE WITH TECHCHANNELNOW AND I'M HERE WITH GARY, A NETWORK ADMIN AT NOVELL SYSTEMS, GARY WHY DON'T YOU TELL US A LITTLE ABOUT YOURSELF"
If I find out that he doesn't hang his toilet paper Over, it will be the final tally marking him irredeemably, irreversibly insane.
#hashbrownsaredelicious
I dunno, they seem inspired as fuck to find clever workarounds, like exemption towards data caps. I'm sure they're innovating like crazy in thinktanks even now. But thinking is haaaaaard.
Not that I have a horse in the race. I don't stream video, I don't really smartphone roam (or at all), I'm not really in their crosshairs.
Not if we magically uninvent weapons down to sharpened sticks.
Since we can't: Weapons exist. They can't be uninvented. Determined actors will find something. A "workaround", if you like. Humans congregate often, daily, and like every second of their life they Will. Be. Vulnerable.
There's only two realities up there that aren't hard, irreversible, immutable fact, two theoretically possible sliders: (1) The amount of human congregation (not gonna change); and (2) the emergence rate of determined actors. That's also unlikely to change, but we arguably can control it. A lot of the arguing is about how. Education, cultural paradigm, mental healthcare, the like.
It might seem like an indirect and not terribly potent change vector, but it's the only one that isn't WHAT IS THE [city/country/police/president] DOING ABOUT IT theater for infants in need of pacifiers.
I will go out of my way to point out that I'm addressing mass killings specifically and set aside discussion of things like unintentional killing or crime rates, which may or may not mean options for trying to alleviate things umbrella style.
I think this joke achieves the Dennis Miller ratio.
They're all over this. They're carefully standing in front of light sources so when they make the front page they're literally glowing. The emergency response system did this - I don't see AT&T or Verizon posturing and saying "we're just so glad that we were able to help".
But the moment anyone catches the smell of potential liability they'll boilerplate about 911 services so fast your head'll spin. "Wait, no, don't do this, it's a bad thing now, not a good thing."
This isn't Toy Story at all!
Oh wait, the studio actually named this clip "Toy Stories". Huh.
It turns out most circumstances are beyond our control. Effort, merit, integrity, these have influence but are absolutely dwarfed. When you hear "it's not what you know" that's not a fucking joke.
Your social status, your career, your resilience and protections against bullshit and exploitation from outside (corporate, gov, etc) are largely determined by the time you draw your ovarian lottery ticket. Sometimes lightning and meteors pick suckers in an obvious manner, it's easy to recognize the universe at work there. Most of the time fate's grip is more subtle, yet still throttling. You can fight it, but to the insignificant level available to your influence. By definition not everysucker will come out well.
It's ugly, but what can you do? It turns out that many Magic: The Gathering (insert luck game of choice) outcomes are determined before players even look at their opening hands. The performance is meaningless. All your skill and cunning and foresight and opponent-reading, meaningless against how the deck was stacked. Struggle all you want, only so much flex exists in the hand you were dealt. Pro play invests heavily in trying (to the degree possible) to repel the game's biggest threat - chance.
I have no illusions about my blessings, or whatever you call them. I was lucky from the moment I was born first-world country; everyone in the Golden Billion was. I "work hard" and "earned" some stuff, but I know better than to credit my ego with everything in my life. Partly because I'm not a self-deluding arrogant fuckwit, partly because ego like that seems the sort of thing that tempts fate. God. Whatever.
OT: Acronyms are the only safe future of passwords. Nursery rhyme becomes "rrrybgdts".
Now I'm no fancy technology expert, but I've consulted major doctorate scientists who have informed me that the overwhelming usage for people employing encryption schemes is to in fact support a deliberate intent to hide something, ladies and gentlemen of the jury.