You can say that the applicant must be able to legally work in the US. Some employers love H1-Bs. Others will not even interview a candidate who doesn't already have a green card. The knife cuts both ways.
Tone deaf people can speak and understand Chinese. If you take all of the tones away a sentence can be understood, you just have to listen harder. The tones are essentially removed when singing.
There's a strong motivation to test a competing security company's products and find defects. Certainly something great to point out in a sales call. But I don't see why this is bad. If you're a security company, you should expect this. It's not just your competitors who are going to be looking hard. It's everybody. In this case a competitor disclosed responsibly. I don't think you can get a better outcome. Don't like it? Well first fix your flaw and then return the favor by helping audit your competitor's product!
But this would be a government of the powerful and for the powerful. And if the least powerful had any sense they would band together and rise up in armed conflict in order to establish a government that is fairer. If we allow this at a small scale (unions, labor laws), we (as a society) are able to avoid it at a large scale. Implicit in your version is that those who are less well-off accept their lot in life or try to change it by emulating those who are more powerful and therefore superior. Human nature doesn't work that way, though. I think it's a recipe for disaster if government only does those things.
http://www.economist.com/blogs...http://livingwage.mit.edu/page...
What we try to do is to calculate what amount of money allow somebody to cover the basic necessities. Maybe there is an argument for $30 but it's not "more is better." The argument for a living wage is that if somebody works a 40-60 hour week, they should be able to afford food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
I don't know of any places where $30/hr would be needed for this. But the "more is better" argument is a ridiculous strawman which is why nobody will debate you.
No but they're forcing honest taxi drivers out of business. You can't say "just don't drive for Uber" because the drivers have little negotiating power. One of the primary purposes of government is to protect those in weak negotiating positions.
Which is why I think it's crazy to buy anything other than Nexus of iPhone. I wouldn't buy Samsung no matter how good it is because there is a carrier deciding if I get updates. Samsung wouldn't *have* to do this. They *could* ship devices that they update directly the way Google/Apple does but they've decided to make some deals with the devils (carriers) that harm their customers.
Southwest specifically prohibits the playing of full-length movies (although they do offer movies streamed from within the plane) and make some attempt to actively block the playing. I don't know how effective the measures are. They also prohibit voice calls over the WiFi. On plenty of occasions I have dialed into a WebEx meeting and listened to the voice and put my comments into the chat window and it worked just fine.
This type of manufacturing is really "assembling." Electronics manufacturing looks clean but it's really dirty. The pollution associated with a microchip is insane. But this is an assembly line that's putting the parts together and it isn't going to pollute much at all.
Yes but it's still better to have the construction and the factory here. There will be some jobs and maintenance as the factory runs. What's being pointed out here is what is already known by those who want to know. Automation is taking away more jobs than outsourcing. And that's not going away. The good thing about automation is that it's making US manufacturing competitive again. The downside is that manufacturing is just going to be a much smaller employer going forward.
Or first he pointed at the employee and then, later, when it was no longer pointed at the employee, he discharged it. This is really by far the most likely thing. He could point it at the employee and then shoot near the employee intentionally missing in order to maximize fear without actually hurting the employee. He doesn't want to kill a witness to the conspiracy!
This is only a sensible thing to do if you are also going to break the law and not file and pay the use tax in your state of residence. So all of these transactions are illegal. If Google didn't block the accounts, they could also be liable in a contributory way. What else could they possibly do? The real answer for the US is to stop having different state/local sales tax and set a national policy where money gets distributed. Sadly that would probably turn into a bureaucratic, inefficient nightmare, so maybe there's no good solution. But you can't evade the taxes this way and expect Google to take a risk and ignore it.
When the Concorde was flying, there was a dedicated airport entrance for Concorde passengers, dedicated screening lines, and even a dedicated lounge at the airport. No mixing with ordinary people.
Better would have been to offer three settings. On. Microphone ready. Off. Then there would be no confusion. I can't think of any non-creepy reason to do it this way.
The whole point of a search engine is to try to find information. Wrong information greatly reduces the value of the search product. If Google only returned fake news it would be the equivalent of Snopes. And Google's search revenue is much higher than Snopes' is, that's for sure. If Google places ads on fake news sites, they create an internal conflict. Rather than have to deal with that, they've decided that the revenue from fake news sites isn't worth the cost of the internal misalignment and have dropped it. No idea why this is noteworthy at all. There are fake news sites that are trying to make money off of ads. Those are mostly yawners. And there are those with a political agenda. This will probably impact the former but not the latter.
The purpose of EMET is not to prevent exploitation of vulnerabilities in Microsoft software. It's for helping you deal with third-party software that doesn't have their own mitigation techniques built-in. Microsoft has updated all of it's software years ago to enable everything that's in EMET.
The reason for dropping EMET is that adversaries have gotten quite good at getting around the EMET protections. The recommendation is to move to Windows 10 where you get much better protection without the need to use EMET. Stack cookies, control flow guard, delayed memory freeing, et cetera.
You're never going to fix every bug, so you need mitigation techniques. It's just that EMET is long in the tooth and it's time to update the counter-measures.
Actually, an FCC working group did just put forth proposals to solve this problem. It's actually a harder problem to solve. AT&T has no trouble seeing who their customers call and potentially cutting off those who abuse the phone system. But that's not the same problem as what to do when calls from other networks hit yours. It's the difference between protecting your network from internal vs. external attacks.
What's new is that they are selling the data to law enforcement. Until this was revealed, general opinion was that the data was only given to law enforcement when it was requested. Now we see that the phone company is out trying to encourage law enforcement to consume the data for a price. My answer is about the same as the AC response (currently moderated at zero) but without the unnecessary personal attack.
You are lying, or at least misleading. Which is the little lie that starts it off. Then later on your wife will wear the shoes for some big event saying "I remember that you liked these shoes" and the downward spiral begins. I don't think we need a study to prove this happens, the point of the study is what happens to your brain under these well-known circumstances.
He's not worried about the Brits sending him to the US at least not that I've heard of. He's worried that he returns to Sweden, gets cleared of the sexual allegations, and then immediately extradited to to US.
Slashdot Mirror
You can say that the applicant must be able to legally work in the US. Some employers love H1-Bs. Others will not even interview a candidate who doesn't already have a green card. The knife cuts both ways.
Tone deaf people can speak and understand Chinese. If you take all of the tones away a sentence can be understood, you just have to listen harder. The tones are essentially removed when singing.
There's a strong motivation to test a competing security company's products and find defects. Certainly something great to point out in a sales call. But I don't see why this is bad. If you're a security company, you should expect this. It's not just your competitors who are going to be looking hard. It's everybody. In this case a competitor disclosed responsibly. I don't think you can get a better outcome. Don't like it? Well first fix your flaw and then return the favor by helping audit your competitor's product!
But this would be a government of the powerful and for the powerful. And if the least powerful had any sense they would band together and rise up in armed conflict in order to establish a government that is fairer. If we allow this at a small scale (unions, labor laws), we (as a society) are able to avoid it at a large scale. Implicit in your version is that those who are less well-off accept their lot in life or try to change it by emulating those who are more powerful and therefore superior. Human nature doesn't work that way, though. I think it's a recipe for disaster if government only does those things.
http://meetthebrick.com/
Than what is the purpose of government?
http://www.economist.com/blogs... http://livingwage.mit.edu/page... What we try to do is to calculate what amount of money allow somebody to cover the basic necessities. Maybe there is an argument for $30 but it's not "more is better." The argument for a living wage is that if somebody works a 40-60 hour week, they should be able to afford food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. I don't know of any places where $30/hr would be needed for this. But the "more is better" argument is a ridiculous strawman which is why nobody will debate you.
No but they're forcing honest taxi drivers out of business. You can't say "just don't drive for Uber" because the drivers have little negotiating power. One of the primary purposes of government is to protect those in weak negotiating positions.
Which is why I think it's crazy to buy anything other than Nexus of iPhone. I wouldn't buy Samsung no matter how good it is because there is a carrier deciding if I get updates. Samsung wouldn't *have* to do this. They *could* ship devices that they update directly the way Google/Apple does but they've decided to make some deals with the devils (carriers) that harm their customers.
Southwest specifically prohibits the playing of full-length movies (although they do offer movies streamed from within the plane) and make some attempt to actively block the playing. I don't know how effective the measures are. They also prohibit voice calls over the WiFi. On plenty of occasions I have dialed into a WebEx meeting and listened to the voice and put my comments into the chat window and it worked just fine.
But neither of those charged by the kb downloaded, only the connection time.
This type of manufacturing is really "assembling." Electronics manufacturing looks clean but it's really dirty. The pollution associated with a microchip is insane. But this is an assembly line that's putting the parts together and it isn't going to pollute much at all.
Yes but it's still better to have the construction and the factory here. There will be some jobs and maintenance as the factory runs. What's being pointed out here is what is already known by those who want to know. Automation is taking away more jobs than outsourcing. And that's not going away. The good thing about automation is that it's making US manufacturing competitive again. The downside is that manufacturing is just going to be a much smaller employer going forward.
Or first he pointed at the employee and then, later, when it was no longer pointed at the employee, he discharged it. This is really by far the most likely thing. He could point it at the employee and then shoot near the employee intentionally missing in order to maximize fear without actually hurting the employee. He doesn't want to kill a witness to the conspiracy!
Carried interest, for example
This is only a sensible thing to do if you are also going to break the law and not file and pay the use tax in your state of residence. So all of these transactions are illegal. If Google didn't block the accounts, they could also be liable in a contributory way. What else could they possibly do? The real answer for the US is to stop having different state/local sales tax and set a national policy where money gets distributed. Sadly that would probably turn into a bureaucratic, inefficient nightmare, so maybe there's no good solution. But you can't evade the taxes this way and expect Google to take a risk and ignore it.
When the Concorde was flying, there was a dedicated airport entrance for Concorde passengers, dedicated screening lines, and even a dedicated lounge at the airport. No mixing with ordinary people.
Better would have been to offer three settings. On. Microphone ready. Off. Then there would be no confusion. I can't think of any non-creepy reason to do it this way.
The whole point of a search engine is to try to find information. Wrong information greatly reduces the value of the search product. If Google only returned fake news it would be the equivalent of Snopes. And Google's search revenue is much higher than Snopes' is, that's for sure. If Google places ads on fake news sites, they create an internal conflict. Rather than have to deal with that, they've decided that the revenue from fake news sites isn't worth the cost of the internal misalignment and have dropped it. No idea why this is noteworthy at all. There are fake news sites that are trying to make money off of ads. Those are mostly yawners. And there are those with a political agenda. This will probably impact the former but not the latter.
Well that makes sense if they are continuously improving security. What else would they do? Go backwards?
The purpose of EMET is not to prevent exploitation of vulnerabilities in Microsoft software. It's for helping you deal with third-party software that doesn't have their own mitigation techniques built-in. Microsoft has updated all of it's software years ago to enable everything that's in EMET. The reason for dropping EMET is that adversaries have gotten quite good at getting around the EMET protections. The recommendation is to move to Windows 10 where you get much better protection without the need to use EMET. Stack cookies, control flow guard, delayed memory freeing, et cetera. You're never going to fix every bug, so you need mitigation techniques. It's just that EMET is long in the tooth and it's time to update the counter-measures.
Actually, an FCC working group did just put forth proposals to solve this problem. It's actually a harder problem to solve. AT&T has no trouble seeing who their customers call and potentially cutting off those who abuse the phone system. But that's not the same problem as what to do when calls from other networks hit yours. It's the difference between protecting your network from internal vs. external attacks.
What's new is that they are selling the data to law enforcement. Until this was revealed, general opinion was that the data was only given to law enforcement when it was requested. Now we see that the phone company is out trying to encourage law enforcement to consume the data for a price. My answer is about the same as the AC response (currently moderated at zero) but without the unnecessary personal attack.
You are lying, or at least misleading. Which is the little lie that starts it off. Then later on your wife will wear the shoes for some big event saying "I remember that you liked these shoes" and the downward spiral begins. I don't think we need a study to prove this happens, the point of the study is what happens to your brain under these well-known circumstances.
He's not worried about the Brits sending him to the US at least not that I've heard of. He's worried that he returns to Sweden, gets cleared of the sexual allegations, and then immediately extradited to to US.