And solve nothing. Given the amount of identity theft in the news, combined with companies offering credit monitoring automatically, the potential for harm is basically self-evident today.
If the account allows access to personal information, including financial information, then you have a clear lawsuit and, with the right lawyer, are likely to win.
If the site account allows control of the financial account, such as a saved credit card being able to order products, then you can demonstrate the potential for abuse. If the site allows you to change your password, then your awareness of that ability at the time you received the e-mail may impact your case. If you can't control the destination of the product, you lose points and have no case.
If you can't order anything, but you can upgrade or downgrade services, this can probably be resolved via contact with the company, and you can show no actual nor potential damage.
First, if you can't show harm, then no one gives a shit about your password.
Second, if you can show harm, then figure out who represents the company and write them. In any contact with the company, ask for the legal representation address. If that doesn't help, file a "John Doe" lawsuit with the information you do have.
In case it's not obvious, you can either do nothing, by choosing to do no business, or fix the problem by filing a lawsuit. That's it. Name and shame affects a very small number of potential customers, even on this kind of issue.
"Don't Do Business With Them" is terrible advice, because it helps exactly 1 person. Perhaps 2 if that person is legally or financially intertwined with someone. But it's not the only option. It depends on the circumstances, and only one type of person can advise you further. International lawyer? No, just stop.
In-country lawyer? That's the answer to how. It's expensive, and you have to take it in the pocket for everyone else. But everyone else doesn't have standing.
Fight it or shut up and quit whining to the internet. That is what Consumerist is for.
In this case, I'm more likely to believe that Dice knows this is a sure-fire revenue generator. Look at the first thread - that's a lot of page reloads.
Of course, no one replying is likely to click an ad, but ads work on shear numbers, and presenting good numbers helps revenue.
And four, we had better results from Slashdot Media for the second quarter in a row.
Third quarter revenues increased $15 million or 29% year-over-year to $67.6 million. The majority of the growth, $13.2 million, came from businesses that we acquired over the past year. The rest of the growth came from improvements at Slashdot Media and eFinancialCareers....Slashdot Media revenues increased 30% year-over-year to $4.8 million, due to better optimization strategies, increased ability to deliver more B2B leads and product design changes that increased inventory....
So I'll take Slashdot first. I think Slashdot really underperformed for a period of time. We made a number of changes over the course of the last year or so after looking at its performance. And I think there's a handful of things, John touched on a few of them before. But I think there's just a better focus in that organization now on monetizing the assets. I don't think that existed in the past. I think they tried to sell advertising and to sell advertising and sell lead generation. But I think our focus is -- was to step back and look at different ways to monetize the assets, and I think we do a far better job at that now, and I think we've done some work on streamlining the organization and made the organization more, what I would refer to as succinct. And so I think that's had a top line benefit and I think it's had a bottom line benefit. And now the margin in that business is comparable to the margins in our other high-performing businesses...
Dice Holdings (NYSE:DHX) Q3 2014 Earnings Call October 30, 2014 8:30 am ET
I don't know what "monetizing the asset" means, but they started by selling ads and then focused on reducing jobs. Does "monetizing the asset" include page clicks? I think so.
Do you really think that a drunk driver actually thinks about killing people? Does someone at a bar say "It may put some schmuck in the grave but pour me another, barkeep"?
And when the news gets a hold of the exclusive interview, does the convicted driver say "Fuck it, I'd do it again"?
Solving a problem is about understanding it, and you don't seem to understand it.
Absolutely not, but driving drunk IS a choice. If you are impaired before you get behind the wheel, don't get behind the wheel.
It's definitely not a choice. Being intoxicated means poor decision making, and frequently decisions are made without registering that there is a choice. It is poor planning. Your argument would read a lot better as "if you fail to plan transportation in advance, then you should hand your keys to someone sober" or something like that. Choosing to proceed despite a plan is the choice, but no one would consciously ask "do I drive drunk?" and answer yes.
Simple, make what cellphone users do when driving as illegal as driving drunk.
Drink driving laws and texting laws do not seem to be solving the problem. Yet you say "simple", as if something proven only slightly effective will help. Hopefully you see the problem here.
I won't quote everything, but the whole thread around post #48682969 is arguing that if you drive while intoxicated, you should be punished more severely than "Wanton Endangerment" in most US states. Even following your own logic, a typical definition may use "indifference to human life" or "extreme indifference". That may be 5 years in jail, not a lifetime. If your username suggests your location, check KRS Â 508.060 and ÂÂ 532.020, 532.060.
That just means the penalties are too low. Perhaps forfeiting 100% of your assests would be the best punishment?
This is vengeance. It does not prevent people from making bad decisions or failing to plan. You are not going to fix the problem or prevent anything this way. You obviously have a personal stake in this in some fashion.
...then you deserve whatever punishment those who lives you put at risk decide. So tired of seeing people die or otherwise have their lives ruined due to inebriated thought processes. I don't hate drunks, I hate drunks who maim and kill.
There's the personal stake. But notice that your last sentence specifies the ones who maim and kill. Right now, there are lots of people who are legally too drunk to drive, but will make it home without incident. A very small percentage will be caught, and a smaller percentage will cause an accident, and it is more likely that they will injure themselves.
If we take the opportunity to try turning a drink driver into a productive member of society who has learned the difficulty of making good decisions while intoxicated, those personal experiences will live on in the stories they tell. "I was in jail for a week so don't take a chance" is a more sobering argument than "You don't seem okay." Having real people with real stories, the "scared straight" school, is the most effective way to get the point across that it could happen to you. Having these real, walking stories willing to personally, and physically, intervene before someone gets behind the wheel sounds like something you would support, and that's just one of a great deal of options you have when you have the chance to catch someone in the act, before they cause problems, and correct the behavior.
You can't totally prevent someone from doing it again, but you can get most of them. And, more importantly, you can't stop someone who has never had any problems with the law from thinking it couldn't happen to them. Would you rather focus on first time offenders or repeat offenders? The answer is of course both. But jacking up the punishment only fixes repeat offenders, which are statistically a smaller part of the
The first person to moderate usually sets the tone, and later mods use less critical thinking.
To offset, it would have to be worthy of one mod point. As this reply is predictable, it seems unworthy especially on a low comment count article.
As a troll post, this does state an insincerely held belief solely to get a response. You expected funny perhaps, but troll mod is therefore not totally inappropriate.
Understanding primacy and anchoring doesn't undo moderation, so just enjoy that anyone bothered to reply.
Did you read the article? This defector was as inner circle as it gets without doing the actual haxxorz. Whether he is lying is a different story, but your dismissal is groundless.
Occam's Razor does not involve discarding nor ignoring facts. If you look at the entity most likely to gain, you have to read all of the leaked data. Or at least some of it. Or just be aware that stopping a movie is not the obvious goal here.
Some of the Initial contact seemed to be simple extortion, which does not seem to be consistent with the NK narrative at all.
Occam's Razor would take all the facts and proposed explanations, and discard any explanation that required additional or complicated workings. Who stands to profit most, aka follow the money, is a great way to list suspected actors or motives, but a terrible way to make conclusions.
If you rtfa, this seems like the most useful and informative article yet. Less speculation than most, and it addresses questions of why NK was initially implicated.
The only thing missing is discussion of the Lena suspect, and how creation dates suggest the data was copied at USB 2.0 speeds. I am not convinced that means anything, but the corresponding data analyses are illuminating.
I'm not sure which is worse, that USG might misinterpret the available data, or that it might do so intentionally. But revealing that conclusion as not just wrong, but myopic and childishly ignorant will be a huge black eye for intel agencies.
And that's the real story here. If it wasn't NK, is it possible to recover? And given Obama's approval rating (which has gone up due to the economy, but will never improve among staunch republicans and racists), the story that will grow legs is how yet another misstep by FartBongo's administration somehow something.
But I'm just here for the facts, and this article has facts, and links to more facts. Some speculation, but not baseless as is par for the course these days.
Every article I have read, and its over 20 in the past 6 months, has some attempt to ask why. Maybe a quote from an expert, or study, or at the least then a vague statement that people are asking questions.
The point of this article seems to be examining what happened at one place when tech became popular. It's the addressing of the why, or at least one attempt to explain it.
You seem to have a hair trigger on this issue, and I encourage you to reevaluate how your perspective fits in.
Does the culture affect the decision to join the field? It sounds like you are saying that people experience the culture, then decide to change field of study.
To support your suggestion, a simple study asking for opinions would put this to rest.
You replied to the question of what changed. While you may be correct, it doesn't seem to answer the question. What changed to give women a gradually decreasing share if employment over 50+ years?
why does every he-done-bad story involving someone remotely associated with the Republican party lead with "Republican so-and-so...".
Because Republicans are the party of the moral conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious conservatives, and most other conservatives.
A typical Democrat, party of liberals, will not be outraged by a speeding ticket or drug charge or arrest for gayness. But a typical Republican will be mortified by an arrest for anything, or a charge of darn near any wrong-doing.
Because Republicans have vilified behavior that Democrats do not see as being wrong. So when a Republican does it, it's hypocritical, but when a Democrat does it it's anti-establishment.
Also, party doesn't really matter here, since this is non-partisan wrong-doing. Republican caught with gay porn is partisan wrong-doing. "Democrat, colluding with typically liberal Hollywood, except when copyright is involved then Hollywood votes Republican, involved in Republican scheme to squash liberal-type information sharing site that doesn't do what libereal-cum-conservative Hollywood wants" doesn't really beg for a party line distinction.
If there was some wrong I'd want righted, and I thought that the arm of government responsible for looking into the matter was low on resources, I'd want to be able to "help out"
You sound like bribery. Or stepping outside of your appointed duties. Look, in an organized government you can't just go around doing whatever you want. You can pass information to the appropriate people, but you can't just be a renegade. The Judge Magistrate can't just go around knocking on doors and arresting people. That's for barbarians like England.
The only way to get elected is lie your ass off about what you intend to do once elected. You can't be honest about that and expect to win.
The people who truly want this probably would vote you in, but they don't vote. The people who don't want this vote.
People already on record as someone you would vote for will not get the funding. They will not get past the first round to the primaries where voters get a choice.
What the USA needs is voters who understand that we have a capitalist economy, and who understand at least a little bit how capitalism works. The things you mention about trust busting are anti-capitalist, and we need voters to send the non-capitalists home.
I'm not talking about de-regulation and free market and libertarianism - those are facets of capitalism that can be, and will be, debated by an informed public. I'm talking about a basic understanding of these types of situations:
1) I drive 45 miles one way to work because it's the best job I can find in my area. Now I get trained to handle an additional "job". Why am I not paid more?
The answer is most likely that if you were, as a group, paid more, your business would move to a poorer part of the country, or the world, and you would be out the best job in the area. Or for fuck's sake figure out what skills you need to apply at a better job and go apply. There's no cost to apply to a reputable business, so go do it.
2) We will always have "the rich" in capitalism.
Even if we start out equal tomorrow, there will be people who make good decisions and bad ones, and lucky ones, and we will have back the rich and the poor. The trick here is to remember that pricing your employees out of your market as a general rule does not go well. Unless your market is overseas, and exchange rates suggest that is a poor decision. Specifically, anything that negatively impacts the middle class is an economical time bomb. Screwing the rich is something they will not forgive - but convincing them it is an investment in future profit will fly among the members who follow your argument.
I could go on, but it's clear you don't understand Capitalism, which is the basic economy. It is a modified Capitalism, not a pure one, but you have to understand it. You also do not understand the politics of getting elected. We need a straight up old school confidence man who will then have a "bully pulpit" -- a phrase coined by Teddy -- to push his/her agenda.
So here's where I get all preachy, and I'll be concise to the point of eliminating some data. America was built on the idea that if you're not doing provable harm, then you should be left alone. If you are committing crime after crime, but in no way suspected, then the Government should not read your papers, nor put you in jail without a lawful trial, unless a Court agrees that you are clearly suspect.
The Industrial Revolution inspired many abuses, and most were proven, and laws or regulations passed to prevent such. Gradually, the abuses evened out but many still remain. In different words, if you can prove that your employer is harming you, you have a case. We still have unions and we still have class action lawyers, and a lot of other things that, in a perfect America, would not exist.
But this is not a perfect America. This is one where you must be guilty before any serious investigation is done. We have crack dealers and prostitutes and murderers and red light runners and drunk drivers and counterfeiters and meth labs - why? Because they are legal? No, because we do not authorize law enforcement to knock on every door and search if a crime is being committed.
As an aside, keep your national surveillance comments to yourselves, I know the objections and you didn't undermine my point about having crack dealers and prostitutes and murderers and red light runners and drunk drivers and counterfeiters and meth labs so just STFU.
Same for businesses. Regardless of whether businesses are people, business is run by people, and
Umm. Are you using Dragon speech to text? Because otherwise you need to learn how to communicate.
Clearly you don't know much about.NET, and clearly you don't know about huge parts of the web, which would not do fine without it.
The open source parts of.NET are not the entire CLR. If you don't use Windows, you don't care about this news. And if you don't use Windows, your only interest is curiosity.
If you were curious, you would try it out and see if you like it. Ergo, I can tell you, the argument for avoiding.NET is that you haven't already done otherwise.
Specifically, read the announcement page and see if you have questions about this. "Working on" means "not open source".
More libraries. Consider the subset we have today a down-payment on what is to come. Our goal is to open source the entire.NET Core library stack by Build 2015.
Building and running on non-Windows platforms. We currently only provide the ability to build and run on Windows. We intend to build a public working group between us and the Mono community once we have enough code out there..NET Core Runtime (CoreCLR). Weâ(TM)re currently figuring out the plan for open sourcing the runtime. Stay tuned!
PS. I use Qt for everything on Mobile and desktop, Node for server and Knockout/Angular for web client.
Fuck you with a rake, sideways. I understand that JavaScript/AJAX is the way to get things done, but I have never seen a good Knockout implementation. If you have a template that replies on AJAX, you either have a default text that doesn't apply if JS is disabled, or the user doesn't know if something failed to load.
Example, visit Youtube with JS disabled - you get a message that this video isn't available. I don't know if they use JS, I assume not, but the HTML does not give me useful information.
It is so easy to do knockout, but so hard to do it well. To rely on Knockout or Angular, both JS libraries, for a web client, is basically to tell your security minded users to just trust you.
Well, I can't trust you and I can't trust your advertisers, so go get a rake.
You ask why switch... but that is not the only option.
I have enough experience in Java to know how to write Java style, with Java conventions. And the problems it can cause. I have enough experience with Java developers writing.NET code to know which questions you have to ask to see if someone can code by copying Stackoverflow or Codeproject examples, or really knows their business.
If you have a.NET focused person who also claims Java experience, how do you know what questions to ask if you don't know.NET?
My focus is in hiring or interviewing. At a tech lead level you might have to decide whom to trust when deadlines matter and skillsets are a mystery. As a sole developer, you may have interview questions on both languages if you put them down, so they can decide where you are most needed.
Ca read.NET and write Java? What if they need someone who can read/maintain Java and write.NET?
I've always said that learning a competing language shows you the faults in your own. If there are no faults, you can defend that statement.
You say why bother, I say why not?
1. Is.NET up to the job? As I understand it, only parts of.NET are open source at the moment. Platforms other than Windows may not be supported, and the CLR is not yet open. Your requirements determine if it is up to the job. I'm guessing that for most people, the closed Windows implementation may be, but the open source part might not be.
2. Is there an open source choice today that's popular enough to be considered the standard that employers would like? Java, but it is hardly a standard requirement. I'm answering no to this one.
3. If the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is no, make the argument for avoiding.NET. Answer #1 has already made that argument for you. I'm guessing you didn't understand what is or is not open source now.
In particular, some of.NET CLR is a managed wrapper of the Windows API, much like MFC was an object-oriented wrapper. I don't see those bits being valuable cross-platform without an abstraction layer like WINE in between, and then the utility to people who use GTK or wxWidgets will be marginal. Why use it if you already know another windowing library?
"Why not learn it?" of course, but since we're talking about OS-level internals now, and things that are not supported by the current state of the.NET release, it's fair to say that the argument to avoid it is obvious.
Disclaimer: I get paid to do.NET, but I don't get paid to convince you to do the same.
Then who maintains the robots that clean the shitter? Take turns? Let incompetent people maintain the robots that make airplanes?
Who makes the robots that make the robots that make airplanes?
There will always be a need to stratify, or ration work. Do we assume that, like open source software, someone will volunteer to work instead of lounge?
Automation means higher productivity with little more recurring expense.
Look at productivity vs wages. Productivity is up, wages are stagnant. Profits are up.
Automation explains it all quite well, making it the cause of the problem you highlight. I'm using data since 1970. It's easy to find and you can select your source. Form an opinion and then come back.
Is consolidation of wealth really unrelated to automation? Or do you just consider the effect more important than the cause?
The workforce has not included housewife, now called stay at home parents, or homemakers. This has not changed at all.
More women are looking for jobs, so they count in employment numbers. But the definition did not change.
And if you think that 6% now means there is no struggle, build a time machine and go back to 2008-2012. 6% means that the 95% of people who should have jobs have them, the3% who shouldn't don't, and there is some overlap where people are in the wrong area and won't move, or people who should be fired haven't yet been.
Restate your comment because nothing you said makes any sense, in context or out of context.
Why in fuck would you take a highly visible attack with serious consequences to an international business homed outside this country, and blame the wrong people?
Other than conspiracy retards, I can't think of any reason why you would want to piss them off like that. I pride myself on arguing any side of any argument, but I can't see any reason other than "illuminati have their reasons" horseshit.
I don't even care about facts on this one, I just want to know what this serves that we couldn't otherwise accomplish really easily with a low level official and a vague press conference.
Falsely demonstrating NK cyber capabilities? Strain international relations? Short some stock and make billions?
Coding also had nothing to do with hacking. You can learn code all day long the rest of your life, and never learn one thing about exploiting remote systems.
Spear phishing is often in insert vector, and has nothing to do with code whatsoever.
And at the moment, code may be the superpower that everyone has access to. Meaning its not super, and will soon be not even power.
If a horse could take a shit directly into the intertubes, this summary would be indistinguishable
As it is, Dice is getting a kick out of these replies.
Also, how long is your reply? Too long. I look for the factual correction, where Bennett didn't read the literature first. Now I'm going to point out that you are the problem. Don't click, don't comment.
Slashdot Mirror
And solve nothing. Given the amount of identity theft in the news, combined with companies offering credit monitoring automatically, the potential for harm is basically self-evident today.
If the account allows access to personal information, including financial information, then you have a clear lawsuit and, with the right lawyer, are likely to win.
If the site account allows control of the financial account, such as a saved credit card being able to order products, then you can demonstrate the potential for abuse. If the site allows you to change your password, then your awareness of that ability at the time you received the e-mail may impact your case. If you can't control the destination of the product, you lose points and have no case.
If you can't order anything, but you can upgrade or downgrade services, this can probably be resolved via contact with the company, and you can show no actual nor potential damage.
First, if you can't show harm, then no one gives a shit about your password.
Second, if you can show harm, then figure out who represents the company and write them. In any contact with the company, ask for the legal representation address. If that doesn't help, file a "John Doe" lawsuit with the information you do have.
In case it's not obvious, you can either do nothing, by choosing to do no business, or fix the problem by filing a lawsuit. That's it. Name and shame affects a very small number of potential customers, even on this kind of issue.
"Don't Do Business With Them" is terrible advice, because it helps exactly 1 person. Perhaps 2 if that person is legally or financially intertwined with someone. But it's not the only option. It depends on the circumstances, and only one type of person can advise you further. International lawyer? No, just stop.
In-country lawyer? That's the answer to how. It's expensive, and you have to take it in the pocket for everyone else. But everyone else doesn't have standing.
Fight it or shut up and quit whining to the internet. That is what Consumerist is for.
In this case, I'm more likely to believe that Dice knows this is a sure-fire revenue generator. Look at the first thread - that's a lot of page reloads.
Of course, no one replying is likely to click an ad, but ads work on shear numbers, and presenting good numbers helps revenue.
http://seekingalpha.com/articl...
Dice Holdings (NYSE:DHX)
Q3 2014 Earnings Call
October 30, 2014 8:30 am ET
I don't know what "monetizing the asset" means, but they started by selling ads and then focused on reducing jobs. Does "monetizing the asset" include page clicks? I think so.
Do you really think that a drunk driver actually thinks about killing people? Does someone at a bar say "It may put some schmuck in the grave but pour me another, barkeep"?
And when the news gets a hold of the exclusive interview, does the convicted driver say "Fuck it, I'd do it again"?
Solving a problem is about understanding it, and you don't seem to understand it.
It's definitely not a choice. Being intoxicated means poor decision making, and frequently decisions are made without registering that there is a choice. It is poor planning. Your argument would read a lot better as "if you fail to plan transportation in advance, then you should hand your keys to someone sober" or something like that. Choosing to proceed despite a plan is the choice, but no one would consciously ask "do I drive drunk?" and answer yes.
Drink driving laws and texting laws do not seem to be solving the problem. Yet you say "simple", as if something proven only slightly effective will help. Hopefully you see the problem here.
I won't quote everything, but the whole thread around post #48682969 is arguing that if you drive while intoxicated, you should be punished more severely than "Wanton Endangerment" in most US states. Even following your own logic, a typical definition may use "indifference to human life" or "extreme indifference". That may be 5 years in jail, not a lifetime. If your username suggests your location, check KRS Â 508.060 and ÂÂ 532.020, 532.060.
This is vengeance. It does not prevent people from making bad decisions or failing to plan. You are not going to fix the problem or prevent anything this way. You obviously have a personal stake in this in some fashion.
There's the personal stake. But notice that your last sentence specifies the ones who maim and kill. Right now, there are lots of people who are legally too drunk to drive, but will make it home without incident. A very small percentage will be caught, and a smaller percentage will cause an accident, and it is more likely that they will injure themselves.
If we take the opportunity to try turning a drink driver into a productive member of society who has learned the difficulty of making good decisions while intoxicated, those personal experiences will live on in the stories they tell. "I was in jail for a week so don't take a chance" is a more sobering argument than "You don't seem okay." Having real people with real stories, the "scared straight" school, is the most effective way to get the point across that it could happen to you. Having these real, walking stories willing to personally, and physically, intervene before someone gets behind the wheel sounds like something you would support, and that's just one of a great deal of options you have when you have the chance to catch someone in the act, before they cause problems, and correct the behavior.
You can't totally prevent someone from doing it again, but you can get most of them. And, more importantly, you can't stop someone who has never had any problems with the law from thinking it couldn't happen to them. Would you rather focus on first time offenders or repeat offenders? The answer is of course both. But jacking up the punishment only fixes repeat offenders, which are statistically a smaller part of the
The first person to moderate usually sets the tone, and later mods use less critical thinking.
To offset, it would have to be worthy of one mod point. As this reply is predictable, it seems unworthy especially on a low comment count article.
As a troll post, this does state an insincerely held belief solely to get a response. You expected funny perhaps, but troll mod is therefore not totally inappropriate.
Understanding primacy and anchoring doesn't undo moderation, so just enjoy that anyone bothered to reply.
Did you read the article? This defector was as inner circle as it gets without doing the actual haxxorz. Whether he is lying is a different story, but your dismissal is groundless.
Assuming you mean potus instead of plain old telephone system, they don't seem to have regulatory approval to do so, making it congress's job.
Bad source, but concise.
http://crooksandliars.com/2014...
Occam's Razor does not involve discarding nor ignoring facts. If you look at the entity most likely to gain, you have to read all of the leaked data. Or at least some of it. Or just be aware that stopping a movie is not the obvious goal here.
Some of the Initial contact seemed to be simple extortion, which does not seem to be consistent with the NK narrative at all.
Occam's Razor would take all the facts and proposed explanations, and discard any explanation that required additional or complicated workings. Who stands to profit most, aka follow the money, is a great way to list suspected actors or motives, but a terrible way to make conclusions.
If you rtfa, this seems like the most useful and informative article yet. Less speculation than most, and it addresses questions of why NK was initially implicated.
The only thing missing is discussion of the Lena suspect, and how creation dates suggest the data was copied at USB 2.0 speeds. I am not convinced that means anything, but the corresponding data analyses are illuminating.
I'm not sure which is worse, that USG might misinterpret the available data, or that it might do so intentionally. But revealing that conclusion as not just wrong, but myopic and childishly ignorant will be a huge black eye for intel agencies.
And that's the real story here. If it wasn't NK, is it possible to recover? And given Obama's approval rating (which has gone up due to the economy, but will never improve among staunch republicans and racists), the story that will grow legs is how yet another misstep by FartBongo's administration somehow something.
But I'm just here for the facts, and this article has facts, and links to more facts. Some speculation, but not baseless as is par for the course these days.
You start with the presumption that it was an inside job. All the rest of your questions are pointless.
Asserting that NK does not have the skill necessary without any suggestion how you got that conclusion, that's not helpful.
And you end by stating that more info is needed. I assume you are arguing ad absurdum, but then the part about computer illiteracy is out of place.
Put your thoughts back together and try again.
Still in talks. Non story, unless you want all news to be final, and that anything not reported will never happen.
https://variety.com/2014/digit...
Every article I have read, and its over 20 in the past 6 months, has some attempt to ask why. Maybe a quote from an expert, or study, or at the least then a vague statement that people are asking questions.
The point of this article seems to be examining what happened at one place when tech became popular. It's the addressing of the why, or at least one attempt to explain it.
You seem to have a hair trigger on this issue, and I encourage you to reevaluate how your perspective fits in.
Does the culture affect the decision to join the field? It sounds like you are saying that people experience the culture, then decide to change field of study.
To support your suggestion, a simple study asking for opinions would put this to rest.
You replied to the question of what changed. While you may be correct, it doesn't seem to answer the question. What changed to give women a gradually decreasing share if employment over 50+ years?
Didn't Sony just tell the uber US hacking corps to fuck Korea in the goat ass for the recent hacking attempts?
No?
Because if Hollywood had the power you are talking about, the would have immediately.
You have a very specific definition of power, and one that you should elaborate on or just stick a sock in your mouth for the rest of the week.
Because Republicans are the party of the moral conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, religious conservatives, and most other conservatives.
A typical Democrat, party of liberals, will not be outraged by a speeding ticket or drug charge or arrest for gayness. But a typical Republican will be mortified by an arrest for anything, or a charge of darn near any wrong-doing.
Because Republicans have vilified behavior that Democrats do not see as being wrong. So when a Republican does it, it's hypocritical, but when a Democrat does it it's anti-establishment.
Also, party doesn't really matter here, since this is non-partisan wrong-doing. Republican caught with gay porn is partisan wrong-doing. "Democrat, colluding with typically liberal Hollywood, except when copyright is involved then Hollywood votes Republican, involved in Republican scheme to squash liberal-type information sharing site that doesn't do what libereal-cum-conservative Hollywood wants" doesn't really beg for a party line distinction.
You sound like bribery. Or stepping outside of your appointed duties. Look, in an organized government you can't just go around doing whatever you want. You can pass information to the appropriate people, but you can't just be a renegade. The Judge Magistrate can't just go around knocking on doors and arresting people. That's for barbarians like England.
The only way to get elected is lie your ass off about what you intend to do once elected. You can't be honest about that and expect to win.
The people who truly want this probably would vote you in, but they don't vote. The people who don't want this vote.
People already on record as someone you would vote for will not get the funding. They will not get past the first round to the primaries where voters get a choice.
What the USA needs is voters who understand that we have a capitalist economy, and who understand at least a little bit how capitalism works. The things you mention about trust busting are anti-capitalist, and we need voters to send the non-capitalists home.
I'm not talking about de-regulation and free market and libertarianism - those are facets of capitalism that can be, and will be, debated by an informed public. I'm talking about a basic understanding of these types of situations:
1) I drive 45 miles one way to work because it's the best job I can find in my area. Now I get trained to handle an additional "job". Why am I not paid more?
The answer is most likely that if you were, as a group, paid more, your business would move to a poorer part of the country, or the world, and you would be out the best job in the area. Or for fuck's sake figure out what skills you need to apply at a better job and go apply. There's no cost to apply to a reputable business, so go do it.
2) We will always have "the rich" in capitalism.
Even if we start out equal tomorrow, there will be people who make good decisions and bad ones, and lucky ones, and we will have back the rich and the poor. The trick here is to remember that pricing your employees out of your market as a general rule does not go well. Unless your market is overseas, and exchange rates suggest that is a poor decision. Specifically, anything that negatively impacts the middle class is an economical time bomb. Screwing the rich is something they will not forgive - but convincing them it is an investment in future profit will fly among the members who follow your argument.
I could go on, but it's clear you don't understand Capitalism, which is the basic economy. It is a modified Capitalism, not a pure one, but you have to understand it. You also do not understand the politics of getting elected. We need a straight up old school confidence man who will then have a "bully pulpit" -- a phrase coined by Teddy -- to push his/her agenda.
So here's where I get all preachy, and I'll be concise to the point of eliminating some data. America was built on the idea that if you're not doing provable harm, then you should be left alone. If you are committing crime after crime, but in no way suspected, then the Government should not read your papers, nor put you in jail without a lawful trial, unless a Court agrees that you are clearly suspect.
The Industrial Revolution inspired many abuses, and most were proven, and laws or regulations passed to prevent such. Gradually, the abuses evened out but many still remain. In different words, if you can prove that your employer is harming you, you have a case. We still have unions and we still have class action lawyers, and a lot of other things that, in a perfect America, would not exist.
But this is not a perfect America. This is one where you must be guilty before any serious investigation is done. We have crack dealers and prostitutes and murderers and red light runners and drunk drivers and counterfeiters and meth labs - why? Because they are legal? No, because we do not authorize law enforcement to knock on every door and search if a crime is being committed.
As an aside, keep your national surveillance comments to yourselves, I know the objections and you didn't undermine my point about having crack dealers and prostitutes and murderers and red light runners and drunk drivers and counterfeiters and meth labs so just STFU.
Same for businesses. Regardless of whether businesses are people, business is run by people, and
Umm. Are you using Dragon speech to text? Because otherwise you need to learn how to communicate.
Clearly you don't know much about .NET, and clearly you don't know about huge parts of the web, which would not do fine without it.
The open source parts of .NET are not the entire CLR. If you don't use Windows, you don't care about this news. And if you don't use Windows, your only interest is curiosity.
If you were curious, you would try it out and see if you like it. Ergo, I can tell you, the argument for avoiding .NET is that you haven't already done otherwise.
Specifically, read the announcement page and see if you have questions about this. "Working on" means "not open source".
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet...
Fuck you with a rake, sideways. I understand that JavaScript/AJAX is the way to get things done, but I have never seen a good Knockout implementation. If you have a template that replies on AJAX, you either have a default text that doesn't apply if JS is disabled, or the user doesn't know if something failed to load.
Example, visit Youtube with JS disabled - you get a message that this video isn't available. I don't know if they use JS, I assume not, but the HTML does not give me useful information.
It is so easy to do knockout, but so hard to do it well. To rely on Knockout or Angular, both JS libraries, for a web client, is basically to tell your security minded users to just trust you.
Well, I can't trust you and I can't trust your advertisers, so go get a rake.
You ask why switch... but that is not the only option.
I have enough experience in Java to know how to write Java style, with Java conventions. And the problems it can cause. I have enough experience with Java developers writing .NET code to know which questions you have to ask to see if someone can code by copying Stackoverflow or Codeproject examples, or really knows their business.
If you have a .NET focused person who also claims Java experience, how do you know what questions to ask if you don't know .NET?
My focus is in hiring or interviewing. At a tech lead level you might have to decide whom to trust when deadlines matter and skillsets are a mystery. As a sole developer, you may have interview questions on both languages if you put them down, so they can decide where you are most needed.
Ca read .NET and write Java? What if they need someone who can read/maintain Java and write .NET?
I've always said that learning a competing language shows you the faults in your own. If there are no faults, you can defend that statement.
You say why bother, I say why not?
1. Is .NET up to the job? .NET are open source at the moment. Platforms other than Windows may not be supported, and the CLR is not yet open. Your requirements determine if it is up to the job. I'm guessing that for most people, the closed Windows implementation may be, but the open source part might not be.
As I understand it, only parts of
2. Is there an open source choice today that's popular enough to be considered the standard that employers would like?
Java, but it is hardly a standard requirement. I'm answering no to this one.
3. If the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is no, make the argument for avoiding .NET.
Answer #1 has already made that argument for you. I'm guessing you didn't understand what is or is not open source now.
In particular, some of .NET CLR is a managed wrapper of the Windows API, much like MFC was an object-oriented wrapper. I don't see those bits being valuable cross-platform without an abstraction layer like WINE in between, and then the utility to people who use GTK or wxWidgets will be marginal. Why use it if you already know another windowing library?
"Why not learn it?" of course, but since we're talking about OS-level internals now, and things that are not supported by the current state of the .NET release, it's fair to say that the argument to avoid it is obvious.
Disclaimer: I get paid to do .NET, but I don't get paid to convince you to do the same.
Then who maintains the robots that clean the shitter? Take turns? Let incompetent people maintain the robots that make airplanes?
Who makes the robots that make the robots that make airplanes?
There will always be a need to stratify, or ration work. Do we assume that, like open source software, someone will volunteer to work instead of lounge?
These problems need solved.
Automation means higher productivity with little more recurring expense.
Look at productivity vs wages. Productivity is up, wages are stagnant. Profits are up.
Automation explains it all quite well, making it the cause of the problem you highlight. I'm using data since 1970. It's easy to find and you can select your source. Form an opinion and then come back.
Is consolidation of wealth really unrelated to automation? Or do you just consider the effect more important than the cause?
The workforce has not included housewife, now called stay at home parents, or homemakers. This has not changed at all.
More women are looking for jobs, so they count in employment numbers. But the definition did not change.
And if you think that 6% now means there is no struggle, build a time machine and go back to 2008-2012. 6% means that the 95% of people who should have jobs have them, the3% who shouldn't don't, and there is some overlap where people are in the wrong area and won't move, or people who should be fired haven't yet been.
Restate your comment because nothing you said makes any sense, in context or out of context.
Why in fuck would you take a highly visible attack with serious consequences to an international business homed outside this country, and blame the wrong people?
Other than conspiracy retards, I can't think of any reason why you would want to piss them off like that. I pride myself on arguing any side of any argument, but I can't see any reason other than "illuminati have their reasons" horseshit.
I don't even care about facts on this one, I just want to know what this serves that we couldn't otherwise accomplish really easily with a low level official and a vague press conference.
Falsely demonstrating NK cyber capabilities? Strain international relations? Short some stock and make billions?
You people really are crazy.
You could take control quickly and hold it for a year. You could infiltrate and hold it for a year, then quickly take control.
You seem to say that the only reason your GoP source said it that way is that it took a year to execute.
Reading comprehension and citations; that's how discussion moves forward.
Coding also had nothing to do with hacking. You can learn code all day long the rest of your life, and never learn one thing about exploiting remote systems.
Spear phishing is often in insert vector, and has nothing to do with code whatsoever.
And at the moment, code may be the superpower that everyone has access to. Meaning its not super, and will soon be not even power.
If a horse could take a shit directly into the intertubes, this summary would be indistinguishable
Stop clicking, stop commenting.
As it is, Dice is getting a kick out of these replies.
Also, how long is your reply? Too long. I look for the factual correction, where Bennett didn't read the literature first. Now I'm going to point out that you are the problem. Don't click, don't comment.