I'm not the the OP, oh ye of poor reading skills, so my first question was for a list of compelling reasons to keep a clearly broken design that only benefits telemarketers and some businesses and presents constant problems for every other user of the system.
We here are the sort of people who design systems, so we need to design a system that doesn't facilitate arbitrary ID spoofing. Your "look up how VOIP works" comment makes me think that you're not a designer of systems, but a lever-pulling operator monkey of the systems designed by others, which means that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. A VOIP system that doesn't trust, without validation or sanity checks, the ID supplied by a peer is perfectly possible to design.
An appropriately accountable system could be designed, even if it ultimately ended up costing businesses some money or flexibility in their setup. Keeping an obviously broken system because you actually make money using it does not typically register as a valid reason to everyone else.
That's the one valid use for this, but that could be implemented without allowing general spoofing. Between that and allowing people to block caller ID altogether (which most normal people wouldn't do and would guarantee that a telemarketer call wouldn't be answered), are there any other cases that warrant allowing the caller to arbitrarily set their own ID?
When Hilary and Obama say they're "Progressive" that's what they mean. They're making the best of a bad situation.
By embracing and extending it, right? You're going with don't blame the player, blame the game?
If you keep voting for (increasing) corruption, the system will become increasingly corrupt. Rationalize it any way you need to, but your actions are only worsening the situation.
Fuck me you're easy to please. I want everything, I want it all powerful, and I want it the size of a tablet?
Your big problem is you think professional laptops include a use case which they simply don't do. 13" "professional" laptop? Hell no. You'll alienate more users with than then not.
This is a reasonable professional laptop, and what I've been using for coding and data analysis for the last few years. Tons of ports, upgradable SSD/RAM, and easy to constantly lug around at 4.5 lbs. I don't need a huge monitor in the field and just because someone doesn't want to drag one around doesn't mean that they're not doing real work on the laptop.
If Apple refreshed this system, I'd stay with them. That model is also the last system that is easily upgradable, too.
At first I assumed the Germans were less friendly, but I was later told that when I did the typical 'American smile' to strangers, the Germans would assume I was attempting to sell them something or otherwise solicit them.
This, by the way, is the end result of marketing-types coopting positive interpersonal gestures and mannerisms for their own sleazy ends. By abusing the tendency for people to take a smile or eye contact (or any of the other aspects that they're destroying) as a sign of friendliness or trust, they strip those gestures of their genuineness.
If you want clarification that will make sense in your particular context, why don't you share a little more of that context? What country are you from? Why so cagey?
Virtue signaling is less about actually doing things and more about talking about doing things.
Giving a buck or a sandwich to a beggar on the street is a fairly private affair, so it doesn't really qualify as virtue signaling. Now setting up a charitable foundation and naming it after yourself or donating to a hospital/university/whatever and getting a building or wing named after you is probably the most extreme example that I can think of.
Still, if I prevent human intervention for 48 hours, then I render a large portion of the country uninhabitable for hundreds (or thousands) of years.
What country are you talking about? Monaco?
The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is only 2,600 km^2, or less than half a percent of the area of a not-that-big country, and even it is full of thriving wildlife and tourists. Modern reactor designs would be desirable, but no commercial reactor is going to make a mess big enough to render a large portion of the country uninhabitable. FUD.
I agree, but I'm voting for a third party anyway because I can't stomach the idea of voting for Trump or Clinton and I don't want my lack of an endorsement for either of them to written off as "voter apathy". Buffoons the others may be, but some of the third party candidates really are the lesser of the evils.
I always do the same (but I keep a record of the gibberish) and recently got stung by a bank website that didn't strip non-alphanumeric characters from the initial entry box, but does strip them from the validation box.:(
If that's your point, then I wholly agree with you. I thought that saying, "It's a disgrace to humanity as a whole," was you distancing yourself from from this monstrosity as if corruption was an American invention or as if the US has even exhibited corruption in its most perfect form.
This particular election (and nearly every other election in the US, at least in my lifetime) is a "shame on us" moment, but contemporary US politics don't represent the worst display of corruption in history or even in the modern world. I have no tolerance for it here, but don't make the mistake of pointing to our shit-show while letting your own fester, even if it isn't quite as bad at the moment.
It's almost as if the worst of your country represent you.
You must be new here (Earth). The top tiers of every government in every country are the worst of us, because the worst of us are attracted to the power and wealth that can be extracted from such positions and have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to get these positions. Where do you live where your politicians are angels (or even decent people)? Looking back through history, how many kings, emperors, presidents, and prime ministers can you name who were not monsters in one way or another?
"If you click the link at the bottom of my post that's labeled 'Parent', you can actually READ the thread that you're replying to without jumping to the assumption that other people are idiots," is what I'd say if you weren't the exact person that I was replying to.
Seriously, did you forget the thread of the conversation? I was replying to your statement:
Then you should be able to provide evidence (receipt) that you bought those branded gift cards from a website instead of telling the police you bought it off from someone else?
In this case, the guy blabbed too much about his stupid scheme, but the AC upthread shouldn't have to provide any evidence at all if the police have no evidence that his hypothetical cards were involved in a crime.
They should need to provide evidence that your gift cards were obtained illegally or were involved in the commission of a crime. You shouldn't need to prove your innocence to avoid being assumed guilty.
I'm not old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but this really is starting to feel like the lead-up to the War in Iraq, down to the vague and unsubstantiated "evidence" being unquestioningly parroted by the media. Who in their right minds wants to start a war with Russia, especially over something as inconsequential as this?
As if a Russian or a Frenchman acting on the Russian's behalf couldn't register a domain in France?
*That's* the best you can come up with?
If you're the one claiming that it's the Russians, then you're the one who has to come up with better evidence; everybody else just needs to poke holes in your argument.
He's pointing out that there's no obvious connections to Russia here. That's more than you've come up with.
You can't think of everything as a partisan issue.
Yes they can. For these hyper-political types, every single issue centers on politics and their team winning and if you disagree then you are evil or stupid (looking at his reply, he went with stupid/crazy for you).
Skepticism, consistent reasoning, and logic do not exist in their world. If you disagree with them on any point or don't take their favorite politician on their word, then you are flawed.
I used to live in a town that not only banned billboards, but also banned the use of color in illuminated signs and had a height restriction for all commercial signs. Driving into town at night was a bit surreal, but the overall effect was visually very pleasant. Our overly commercialized cities are really pretty ugly and tacky.
They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.
Smoking weed may make them unmotivated or spacey, but at its worst will do nothing close to the harm to their lives that arrest, incarceration, and a felony on their record will do. Further, just like there's a difference between hardcore alcoholics and people who enjoy a beer every now and then, not everybody who smokes post is stoned every waking moment of their lives.
Full disclosure: I don't smoke pot, but I know people who do. You sound like the sort of person who would be surprised to learn who around you smokes pot, though they'd likely never tell you. You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.
I'm not talking about revolution. I'm talking about increasing public awareness of the extent of the problems in our society (corruption, etc) by making them more difficult to ignore.
Only a fool thinks that electing either of the poor major party presidential choices is going to literally spark a world war or cause the country to crumble. While Trump may in a similar order of magnitude of corruption as Clinton, he's surely not going to be as crafty and good at hiding it as she has been. If he's a disaster, it will be a very visible disaster (gas on the fire) instead of a continuation of the pervasive smoldering corruption of the last bunch of presidents.
If you want to have an impact, I'd suggest identifying the corruption you see and at least trying to get some people to bring it up in public and vote against it.
The way people apologize for the corruption of both of the candidates (but especially Hillary; maybe it's unfair of me to expect more integrity from the left) makes me think that the corruption needs to be more visible to make an impression.
Then the chosen metrics are shit. This is the largest problem in management, especially when managers don't understand what their team is doing. Ultimately, needing a fixed set of quantitative metrics for non-assembly line work is a poor move on the part of management. Ditching the simplistic idea that managers don't need to understand the work that they're managing would go a long way.
I wonder what metrics management is being evaluated by, because those are clearly shit, too.
Slashdot Mirror
That's a great idea.
I'm not the the OP, oh ye of poor reading skills, so my first question was for a list of compelling reasons to keep a clearly broken design that only benefits telemarketers and some businesses and presents constant problems for every other user of the system.
We here are the sort of people who design systems, so we need to design a system that doesn't facilitate arbitrary ID spoofing. Your "look up how VOIP works" comment makes me think that you're not a designer of systems, but a lever-pulling operator monkey of the systems designed by others, which means that you have nothing to contribute to this discussion. A VOIP system that doesn't trust, without validation or sanity checks, the ID supplied by a peer is perfectly possible to design.
An appropriately accountable system could be designed, even if it ultimately ended up costing businesses some money or flexibility in their setup. Keeping an obviously broken system because you actually make money using it does not typically register as a valid reason to everyone else.
That's the one valid use for this, but that could be implemented without allowing general spoofing. Between that and allowing people to block caller ID altogether (which most normal people wouldn't do and would guarantee that a telemarketer call wouldn't be answered), are there any other cases that warrant allowing the caller to arbitrarily set their own ID?
When Hilary and Obama say they're "Progressive" that's what they mean. They're making the best of a bad situation.
By embracing and extending it, right? You're going with don't blame the player, blame the game?
If you keep voting for (increasing) corruption, the system will become increasingly corrupt. Rationalize it any way you need to, but your actions are only worsening the situation.
Fuck me you're easy to please. I want everything, I want it all powerful, and I want it the size of a tablet?
Your big problem is you think professional laptops include a use case which they simply don't do. 13" "professional" laptop? Hell no. You'll alienate more users with than then not.
This is a reasonable professional laptop, and what I've been using for coding and data analysis for the last few years. Tons of ports, upgradable SSD/RAM, and easy to constantly lug around at 4.5 lbs. I don't need a huge monitor in the field and just because someone doesn't want to drag one around doesn't mean that they're not doing real work on the laptop.
If Apple refreshed this system, I'd stay with them. That model is also the last system that is easily upgradable, too.
At first I assumed the Germans were less friendly, but I was later told that when I did the typical 'American smile' to strangers, the Germans would assume I was attempting to sell them something or otherwise solicit them.
This, by the way, is the end result of marketing-types coopting positive interpersonal gestures and mannerisms for their own sleazy ends. By abusing the tendency for people to take a smile or eye contact (or any of the other aspects that they're destroying) as a sign of friendliness or trust, they strip those gestures of their genuineness.
If you want clarification that will make sense in your particular context, why don't you share a little more of that context? What country are you from? Why so cagey?
Virtue signaling is less about actually doing things and more about talking about doing things.
Giving a buck or a sandwich to a beggar on the street is a fairly private affair, so it doesn't really qualify as virtue signaling. Now setting up a charitable foundation and naming it after yourself or donating to a hospital/university/whatever and getting a building or wing named after you is probably the most extreme example that I can think of.
Still, if I prevent human intervention for 48 hours, then I render a large portion of the country uninhabitable for hundreds (or thousands) of years.
What country are you talking about? Monaco?
The Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is only 2,600 km^2, or less than half a percent of the area of a not-that-big country, and even it is full of thriving wildlife and tourists. Modern reactor designs would be desirable, but no commercial reactor is going to make a mess big enough to render a large portion of the country uninhabitable. FUD.
I agree, but I'm voting for a third party anyway because I can't stomach the idea of voting for Trump or Clinton and I don't want my lack of an endorsement for either of them to written off as "voter apathy". Buffoons the others may be, but some of the third party candidates really are the lesser of the evils.
50 years ago, battery powered tools didn't exist at all because no battery could hold enough charge and still be portable.
The first cordless electric drill was produced by Black and Decker in 1961, using NiCd batteries. That's 55 years ago.
I always do the same (but I keep a record of the gibberish) and recently got stung by a bank website that didn't strip non-alphanumeric characters from the initial entry box, but does strip them from the validation box. :(
If that's your point, then I wholly agree with you. I thought that saying, "It's a disgrace to humanity as a whole," was you distancing yourself from from this monstrosity as if corruption was an American invention or as if the US has even exhibited corruption in its most perfect form.
This particular election (and nearly every other election in the US, at least in my lifetime) is a "shame on us" moment, but contemporary US politics don't represent the worst display of corruption in history or even in the modern world. I have no tolerance for it here, but don't make the mistake of pointing to our shit-show while letting your own fester, even if it isn't quite as bad at the moment.
It's almost as if the worst of your country represent you.
You must be new here (Earth). The top tiers of every government in every country are the worst of us, because the worst of us are attracted to the power and wealth that can be extracted from such positions and have no qualms about doing whatever it takes to get these positions. Where do you live where your politicians are angels (or even decent people)? Looking back through history, how many kings, emperors, presidents, and prime ministers can you name who were not monsters in one way or another?
"If you click the link at the bottom of my post that's labeled 'Parent', you can actually READ the thread that you're replying to without jumping to the assumption that other people are idiots," is what I'd say if you weren't the exact person that I was replying to.
Seriously, did you forget the thread of the conversation? I was replying to your statement:
Then you should be able to provide evidence (receipt) that you bought those branded gift cards from a website instead of telling the police you bought it off from someone else?
In this case, the guy blabbed too much about his stupid scheme, but the AC upthread shouldn't have to provide any evidence at all if the police have no evidence that his hypothetical cards were involved in a crime.
They should need to provide evidence that your gift cards were obtained illegally or were involved in the commission of a crime. You shouldn't need to prove your innocence to avoid being assumed guilty.
I'm not old enough to remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident, but this really is starting to feel like the lead-up to the War in Iraq, down to the vague and unsubstantiated "evidence" being unquestioningly parroted by the media. Who in their right minds wants to start a war with Russia, especially over something as inconsequential as this?
Is that you, John Titor?
As if a Russian or a Frenchman acting on the Russian's behalf couldn't register a domain in France?
*That's* the best you can come up with?
If you're the one claiming that it's the Russians, then you're the one who has to come up with better evidence; everybody else just needs to poke holes in your argument.
He's pointing out that there's no obvious connections to Russia here. That's more than you've come up with.
You can't think of everything as a partisan issue.
Yes they can. For these hyper-political types, every single issue centers on politics and their team winning and if you disagree then you are evil or stupid (looking at his reply, he went with stupid/crazy for you).
Skepticism, consistent reasoning, and logic do not exist in their world. If you disagree with them on any point or don't take their favorite politician on their word, then you are flawed.
I used to live in a town that not only banned billboards, but also banned the use of color in illuminated signs and had a height restriction for all commercial signs. Driving into town at night was a bit surreal, but the overall effect was visually very pleasant. Our overly commercialized cities are really pretty ugly and tacky.
They ruin their own lives. No one is forcing them to smoke weed.
Smoking weed may make them unmotivated or spacey, but at its worst will do nothing close to the harm to their lives that arrest, incarceration, and a felony on their record will do. Further, just like there's a difference between hardcore alcoholics and people who enjoy a beer every now and then, not everybody who smokes post is stoned every waking moment of their lives.
Full disclosure: I don't smoke pot, but I know people who do. You sound like the sort of person who would be surprised to learn who around you smokes pot, though they'd likely never tell you. You sound like you've been hitting the D.A.R.E. pipe pretty hard.
I'm not talking about revolution. I'm talking about increasing public awareness of the extent of the problems in our society (corruption, etc) by making them more difficult to ignore.
Only a fool thinks that electing either of the poor major party presidential choices is going to literally spark a world war or cause the country to crumble. While Trump may in a similar order of magnitude of corruption as Clinton, he's surely not going to be as crafty and good at hiding it as she has been. If he's a disaster, it will be a very visible disaster (gas on the fire) instead of a continuation of the pervasive smoldering corruption of the last bunch of presidents.
If you want to have an impact, I'd suggest identifying the corruption you see and at least trying to get some people to bring it up in public and vote against it.
The way people apologize for the corruption of both of the candidates (but especially Hillary; maybe it's unfair of me to expect more integrity from the left) makes me think that the corruption needs to be more visible to make an impression.
Then the chosen metrics are shit. This is the largest problem in management, especially when managers don't understand what their team is doing. Ultimately, needing a fixed set of quantitative metrics for non-assembly line work is a poor move on the part of management. Ditching the simplistic idea that managers don't need to understand the work that they're managing would go a long way.
I wonder what metrics management is being evaluated by, because those are clearly shit, too.