I would not be surprised if Target's credit card purchasing process mandates that all disputes must be arbitrated.
Is that even something they could do? When I use a CC in a brick and mortar store, I don't think you can claim there's a click-through agreement in place.
Though, I wouldn't put it past the lawyers to have done something like this.
However, since it's the banks filing the class action suit, and storing that stuff the way they did violated both state and federal laws.... good luck with the EULA/arbitration method.
This is just wholesale incompetence, allowing widespread malfeasance.
I'm really amazed at the complete lack of critical thinking on/. these days.
Oh, we're still thinking critically.
Everyone is a shill for [insert company you hate here] and every new anything is obviously an NSA plot.
Except that it seems everyone is, and everything is. Or they are blindly accepting/hating what [insert company you hate here] does, or that it can/will be exploited by the NSA and their ilk.
Get your heads out of your asses already.
I might suggest the same. As little as 5 years ago, saying a lot of these things about the NSA was a little on the tin-foil hat end of the spectrum. Now it seems like reality is far worse than even the more paranoid ever thought.
and the top #1 reason why linux only makes steps forward when somebody steps forward to take that charge, e.g. Linus
Are you forgetting that Linus created Linux? He didn't step forward to take charge. You can't even include him in that list.
can you remember how bad the linux desktop was before ubuntu? it was atrocious....what about before x.org?
When I started using Linux (0.99a Kernel, Slackware on a million floppy disks), the X interface (and OS) was several years ahead of anything Microsoft produced. And I still consider fvwm to be one of my favorite desktop environments of all time, because it was lean, and worked quite well.
I finished university using that machine, and having learned UNIX and C on it, it got me my first job.
You know what I think are terrible desktops? The new stuff which looks like a dumbed down Windows from 10 years ago.
the list is probably endless if you ask somebody for other examples, but I think I've made my point
Well, you've made a point. I don't find it nearly as compelling as you do.
Is open source fragmented and beset with infighting? Sure it is. Has it created really cool stuff despite that? Yup. Has it needed someone to be in charge of it (especially when that someone is a for-profit entity)? Nope. Is this likely to change? Doubtful.
John Carmack has being know to be someone uncompromising when it comes to tech.
That, he may well be.
But depending on just how many zeroes are at the end of anything he'd get... he may well have just said "oh, fuck it, for that much money I'm in".
And, as has already been pointed out, if it's the difference between making a huge stack and living with the 'golden handcuffs', or getting nothing... a lot of people might do the exact same thing.
Start getting into 8 figures, and I might blow Ballmer in the MS boardroom. Make it 9 figures, and we can bloody well livestream it and I'll throw in Gates.;-)
You can buy back a lot of self respect (and mouthwash) for that kinda money.
My immediate reaction to seeing Facebook was buying it was "well, there goes some promising technology". Instead, it will be used to check in with your friends on Facebook and to ensure they're monetizing everything you can do with it.
To hell with that. I strongly suspect that's what's at play here.
The ownership by Facebook of any technology immediately puts the taint of a rich douchebag who wants to monetize everything, invade your privacy, and sell your information.
One party "in charge" just makes Linux an easier target.
That, and the collective mentality of open source is not unlike a bunch of cats which have no desire to be herded by anybody who claims to be in charge.
People work on projects they like, for their own reasons. Not to make something which benefits Canonical.
Well, there's the difference between 'elegant' code and elegant code.
And, in my experience those making the most noise about 'elegant' code write some of the least elegant code -- because clearly they're missing the fundamental parts about what actually makes it elegant.
So, would this map let them locate any 'sneaky'/unreported reactors?
I should think that some people would like to be able to say "gee, I see something in country x which shouldn't be there, we should have a closer look."
At the code level, elegance means readability and ease of understanding what is being done
And maintainability. People often forget that one.
I once had a co-worker who wrote a component he thought was elegant, because it had a nice lovely modelling and abstraction and matched how he thought the problem should be solved.
The problem was, his solution was rigid, brittle, and kinda wrong. The things he turned into elegant objects didn't behave that way, and the things he didn't were the actual meat of the problem.
Every time he had to fix a bug or add a change, he spent time trying to understand how his code worked, where he'd have to make changes, and then bitching about how the change violated his nice 'elegant' code.
On another project, he was writing a component which consumed stuff from a component I and another co-worker had built (they were built concurrently).
By the time we were ready to do integration testing, his nice elegant code had been built on the assumption we would implement all of the semantics for his part (which we couldn't possibly have known). He had structured his code in such a way as to be 'elegant' as long as the library he was using had behaved in a way that nobody would have modeled unless it had been written to precisely implement his semantics.
And, again, his 'elegant' code was rigid, brittle, and wrong and had to be significantly changed to work with an interface he knew about in advance, because we'd agreed upon it before writing both pieces.
At the data / object model level, there are good real-world examples of elegant coding. At this level, elegance affords the ability to make smaller changes or bug fixes without having to resort to major refactoring or adding a lot of messy code in many different places in your program.
And if you start with a terrible object model and then write elegant code around that terrible object model, you get the exact opposite.
And then don't get me started on trying to make your 'elegant' code go faster because you've created more work with how you've structured your code.
Once had a coder tell me we shouldn't optimize because computers are Really Fast and we probably can't do any better. Then I threw away a large chunk of his code and replaced it with something which wasn't doing silly things, and we got a giant speedup.
Some people get so damned focused on writing what they think is 'elegant' code that it is neither useful to the task, well written, nor maintainable.
To do this you have to cut the ATM open at the point where the computer is installed and attach a smartphone to the USB port
Which, apparently, might not be as difficult as we think.
Security is only as good as its weakest link, as they say. And if one of these things is in a place where you could get in and out without being observed (because, say, you've got a clone of the key or know how to bypass the lock)... well, then this is going to happen.
Free money is worth someone spending time working these things out.
Do you know how many times I've seen an ATM with the Windows Blue Screen of Death on it?
Not hundreds, but over 30. I have *long* suspected these things are exceedingly vulnerable computers being used when they shouldn't be.
I've been airports and seen the arrivals/departures board showing NT errors. I have seen stuff in shop windows and other stuff showing similar stuff. A lot of medical devices can't be upgraded because the company never certified it beyond a certain level of Windows.
I usually make a point of photographing them when I see them, and I've seen more than a few.
You shouldn't be surprised, though, you should be disappointed. This has been true for at least a decade, and probably even longer.
Vendors just throw stuff on top of Windows and leave it unpatched. Often the security features rely on either obscurity, prayer, or somewhat weak physical security.
we're simply demanding that they be held to the same standard of evidence as other medical treatment.
And some of us who believe in science based medicine wish more of modern medicine was held to a higher standard than it is now.
How many remedies have big pharma introduced which have subsequently proven to be disastrous because they either fudged their numbers, or hid the data which indicated that either their stuff didn't work or was dangerous?
Because they rush it to market and want to conceal the risks. And then the advertise directly to consumers with a litany of "this product may kill you" warnings.
That's not medicine, that's big business.
And the problem is we have stuff being used in medicine for which the evidence is actually little better than some of the quackery out there.
claiming that they own the patent for delivery of episodic content over the Internet
Once again, we have a patent which seems to say "a system and methodology for doing something well known, but with a computer".
Are the USPTO that incompetent? Podcasts of one form or another are what, 20 years old now?
This is just stupid. There is known prior art for this from at least 1993, and if someone thinks sending out the next in a series of files is an 'innovation', they and the patent examiners who awarded the patent are idiots.
But if you did play golf, you'd know that most golfers cheat on their score cards anyway
It's not cheating, it's creative accounting intended to maximize our enjoyment of the game.
Most golfers are recreational players who would never finish a round if we had to play by every single damned rule, because we're simply not good enough.
Hell, I bet most of us don't know all of the rules and don't care anyway -- I play over 100 rounds/year and I don't give a damn what all the rules are, because while I play over 100 rounds/year, I also score over 100/round; which, alas, is not considered within the realm of being a skilled player.:-P
For most of us amateur golfers, "improving your lie" is a given, and the people you play with know it, and you know their score is distorted as well.
The scores of most recreational golfers I know are understood to include "+ C", where C is ill-defined at best, but proportional to the amount of experienced frustration on any given day.
Most of the people who adhere to every rule are either really good and actually compete -- or overly intense schmucks nobody likes to play with. For the rest of us, well, the score isn't really the point.
We're just out there to play; because if it takes 10,000 hours to get good at something, most of us still have another 9,000 to go.;-)
but at this point it's an almost certainty that they know the rough location of the crash
Until they can confirm the nature of the debris and identify that it's from the plane, I should think it's only "almost certain" that someone saw some form of debris, no?
Slashdot Mirror
Is this a thing, or is my snark detector out of phase again?
Is that even something they could do? When I use a CC in a brick and mortar store, I don't think you can claim there's a click-through agreement in place.
Though, I wouldn't put it past the lawyers to have done something like this.
However, since it's the banks filing the class action suit, and storing that stuff the way they did violated both state and federal laws .... good luck with the EULA/arbitration method.
This is just wholesale incompetence, allowing widespread malfeasance.
Oh, we're still thinking critically.
Except that it seems everyone is, and everything is. Or they are blindly accepting/hating what [insert company you hate here] does, or that it can/will be exploited by the NSA and their ilk.
I might suggest the same. As little as 5 years ago, saying a lot of these things about the NSA was a little on the tin-foil hat end of the spectrum. Now it seems like reality is far worse than even the more paranoid ever thought.
Are you forgetting that Linus created Linux? He didn't step forward to take charge. You can't even include him in that list.
When I started using Linux (0.99a Kernel, Slackware on a million floppy disks), the X interface (and OS) was several years ahead of anything Microsoft produced. And I still consider fvwm to be one of my favorite desktop environments of all time, because it was lean, and worked quite well.
I finished university using that machine, and having learned UNIX and C on it, it got me my first job.
You know what I think are terrible desktops? The new stuff which looks like a dumbed down Windows from 10 years ago.
Well, you've made a point. I don't find it nearly as compelling as you do.
Is open source fragmented and beset with infighting? Sure it is. Has it created really cool stuff despite that? Yup. Has it needed someone to be in charge of it (especially when that someone is a for-profit entity)? Nope. Is this likely to change? Doubtful.
Both exactly like, and somewhat different, from how you do it on a web page.
You really think Facebook has altruistic motives here? Or that they see a potential cash cow in the future?
That, he may well be.
But depending on just how many zeroes are at the end of anything he'd get ... he may well have just said "oh, fuck it, for that much money I'm in".
And, as has already been pointed out, if it's the difference between making a huge stack and living with the 'golden handcuffs', or getting nothing ... a lot of people might do the exact same thing.
Start getting into 8 figures, and I might blow Ballmer in the MS boardroom. Make it 9 figures, and we can bloody well livestream it and I'll throw in Gates. ;-)
You can buy back a lot of self respect (and mouthwash) for that kinda money.
This is why we can't have nice things.
My immediate reaction to seeing Facebook was buying it was "well, there goes some promising technology". Instead, it will be used to check in with your friends on Facebook and to ensure they're monetizing everything you can do with it.
To hell with that. I strongly suspect that's what's at play here.
The ownership by Facebook of any technology immediately puts the taint of a rich douchebag who wants to monetize everything, invade your privacy, and sell your information.
Fuck the Zuck.
That, and the collective mentality of open source is not unlike a bunch of cats which have no desire to be herded by anybody who claims to be in charge.
People work on projects they like, for their own reasons. Not to make something which benefits Canonical.
And, in my experience those making the most noise about 'elegant' code write some of the least elegant code -- because clearly they're missing the fundamental parts about what actually makes it elegant.
So, would this map let them locate any 'sneaky'/unreported reactors?
I should think that some people would like to be able to say "gee, I see something in country x which shouldn't be there, we should have a closer look."
Fine then. The Biomimicry one looks cool, with the Buzz Lightyear one being my second choice.
Sounds like a good place to send the 'B Ark'. ;-)
Doh. "s/ now/ not/g"
Punchline fail. :-P
No no no, for a dish like that, you would use linguine with a cream+wine sauce, not spaghetti.
Now, if you want a red sauce, you'd make something more like a cioppino.
Do you people now know anything? ;-)
Has it really come to this? NASA doesn't have cool technology and science to show us? It's down to fashion?
Could we just focus on the core mission of putting humans in space without needing to rent capacity from the Russians?
Or have we sunk so low that the only way to engage people in space flight is by letting the masses choose the outfits?
And maintainability. People often forget that one.
I once had a co-worker who wrote a component he thought was elegant, because it had a nice lovely modelling and abstraction and matched how he thought the problem should be solved.
The problem was, his solution was rigid, brittle, and kinda wrong. The things he turned into elegant objects didn't behave that way, and the things he didn't were the actual meat of the problem.
Every time he had to fix a bug or add a change, he spent time trying to understand how his code worked, where he'd have to make changes, and then bitching about how the change violated his nice 'elegant' code.
On another project, he was writing a component which consumed stuff from a component I and another co-worker had built (they were built concurrently).
By the time we were ready to do integration testing, his nice elegant code had been built on the assumption we would implement all of the semantics for his part (which we couldn't possibly have known). He had structured his code in such a way as to be 'elegant' as long as the library he was using had behaved in a way that nobody would have modeled unless it had been written to precisely implement his semantics.
And, again, his 'elegant' code was rigid, brittle, and wrong and had to be significantly changed to work with an interface he knew about in advance, because we'd agreed upon it before writing both pieces.
And if you start with a terrible object model and then write elegant code around that terrible object model, you get the exact opposite.
And then don't get me started on trying to make your 'elegant' code go faster because you've created more work with how you've structured your code.
Once had a coder tell me we shouldn't optimize because computers are Really Fast and we probably can't do any better. Then I threw away a large chunk of his code and replaced it with something which wasn't doing silly things, and we got a giant speedup.
Some people get so damned focused on writing what they think is 'elegant' code that it is neither useful to the task, well written, nor maintainable.
And yet, the summary says:
To me this sounds like how it reads ... someone wants the letters to put on their resume to make it look better.
They tried it, but it gummed up the tubes of the interwebs.
Which, apparently, might not be as difficult as we think.
Security is only as good as its weakest link, as they say. And if one of these things is in a place where you could get in and out without being observed (because, say, you've got a clone of the key or know how to bypass the lock) ... well, then this is going to happen.
Free money is worth someone spending time working these things out.
Do you know how many times I've seen an ATM with the Windows Blue Screen of Death on it?
Not hundreds, but over 30. I have *long* suspected these things are exceedingly vulnerable computers being used when they shouldn't be.
I've been airports and seen the arrivals/departures board showing NT errors. I have seen stuff in shop windows and other stuff showing similar stuff. A lot of medical devices can't be upgraded because the company never certified it beyond a certain level of Windows.
I usually make a point of photographing them when I see them, and I've seen more than a few.
You shouldn't be surprised, though, you should be disappointed. This has been true for at least a decade, and probably even longer.
Vendors just throw stuff on top of Windows and leave it unpatched. Often the security features rely on either obscurity, prayer, or somewhat weak physical security.
And some of us who believe in science based medicine wish more of modern medicine was held to a higher standard than it is now.
How many remedies have big pharma introduced which have subsequently proven to be disastrous because they either fudged their numbers, or hid the data which indicated that either their stuff didn't work or was dangerous?
Because they rush it to market and want to conceal the risks. And then the advertise directly to consumers with a litany of "this product may kill you" warnings.
That's not medicine, that's big business.
And the problem is we have stuff being used in medicine for which the evidence is actually little better than some of the quackery out there.
Once again, we have a patent which seems to say "a system and methodology for doing something well known, but with a computer".
Are the USPTO that incompetent? Podcasts of one form or another are what, 20 years old now?
This is just stupid. There is known prior art for this from at least 1993, and if someone thinks sending out the next in a series of files is an 'innovation', they and the patent examiners who awarded the patent are idiots.
It's not cheating, it's creative accounting intended to maximize our enjoyment of the game.
Most golfers are recreational players who would never finish a round if we had to play by every single damned rule, because we're simply not good enough.
Hell, I bet most of us don't know all of the rules and don't care anyway -- I play over 100 rounds/year and I don't give a damn what all the rules are, because while I play over 100 rounds/year, I also score over 100/round; which, alas, is not considered within the realm of being a skilled player. :-P
For most of us amateur golfers, "improving your lie" is a given, and the people you play with know it, and you know their score is distorted as well.
The scores of most recreational golfers I know are understood to include "+ C", where C is ill-defined at best, but proportional to the amount of experienced frustration on any given day.
Most of the people who adhere to every rule are either really good and actually compete -- or overly intense schmucks nobody likes to play with. For the rest of us, well, the score isn't really the point.
We're just out there to play; because if it takes 10,000 hours to get good at something, most of us still have another 9,000 to go. ;-)
Until they can confirm the nature of the debris and identify that it's from the plane, I should think it's only "almost certain" that someone saw some form of debris, no?
Unidentified debris is just that.