These surveys are strictly for idiots. For example (to use one of the data sources in the article), information drawn from what recruiting companies say they are looking for are complete garbage, as anyone who has spent much time here knows. Some recruiters are just trolling for new applicants to add to their slushpile, some are adding stuff that's totally irrelevant to the underlying job so that their candidate will look more well-rounded, some are bogus posts to supply HR with practice interviews, some are just posted as a way to be able to say "we looked for expertise in x and y before we hired an H1B (who doesn't know x or y, but it's rarely investigated) ".10 years experience in Java 9 or Windows 10? 5 years experience with Red Hat linux 7.3? We've all seen these shit listings, the same as we've seen the same job suddenly pop up from a dozen different recruiters. It doesn't mean they're looking for 12 people with that experience.
It's still spelled correctly in my friends list - go look it up, you fraud. Oh, wait, can anonymous cowards even see my friends list? I know they can't see my sig. Tsk tsk, you really need to get an account to play along properly.
Simple - he puts the first on in spam, and when the person wonders why he never got it and tries to sign up to the same account using the same email, it disappears.
A more aggressive (I don't like the word "proactive" - it's kind of contrived in most situations) approach is to set up filters for all emails that have variants of his user name. For example, if his user name is john.doe he can set up filters to block anything with jdoe, johndoe1, and any other user names that have ended up going to him, because it's possible that over time some other John Doe will make the same mistake.
The only "hysteria" is everyone laughing, because Trump IS hysterical. I've heard of sore losers, but sore winners? He's already channeling Nixon, who said "I have never profited from public service, I did not obstruct justice, and I am not a crook." And he's already saying he can pardon himself, a step even Nixon never dared take.
There's a reason why it only took Trump 6 months to drop to the same level of popularity as it took 6 years for Nixon.
Since neither party cared for the average citizen, they both deserve what's coming to them. Trump is like the Titanic - a warning to those who follow. Hopefully it will be heeded. If not, well, either way, the voters will get the government they deserve because they voted for it, and it was the voters who allowed 40 years of trickle-down politics and economics.
From the comments, I'd say that es, there really are people who are that brain-dead. They forget that they couldn't get their name because they signed up later, so used a letter or a number to differentiate it, and now just blithely give your email addy because they forget to include the extra symbol.
That's one of the advantages of being an early adopter - you get to use your name. If you forget your name, you're too far gone to be using email anyway.
GMail treats embedded dots in the name portion as identical to the name without the embedded dot. my.name@example.org is the same as myname@example.org. Check (1) that the tld is identical - gmail.es (spain) isn't the same as gmail.py. (paraguay). Also check that the characters in the name portion really are identical, and not just appearing so in your browser because of font substitution. One way to do this is reply to it and see if the reply goes to you as well. If not, then the local parts are not in fact the same, even if they look the same on your system.
Also, standard fonts allow lots of substitutions that look the same but aren't. For example, BankOfArnerica is NOT the same as BankOfAmerica. The first one is spam bait (if you can't see the difference, cut-n-paste it into an editor and select fixed-width font).
The dating sites, Uber, etc., are signing you up from a list of email addresses that have been harvested. If for some stupid reason you log in, they don't have to show you any ToS because they can claim you already saw it "when you signed up." The dating sites will attempt to bill you, and Uber... it's Uber, so what do you expect except sleaze?
Why bother. Just mark it as spam. Eventually they'll need to reset their password or otherwise confirm their identity, and fail. If they ever contact you when they realize their mistake, mark that as spam too. They'll be like the protagonist in "I have no mouth and I must scream." Never heard again.
You know, you never earned the right in your life (and you never will) even to be his dick cheese
Let's play Family Feud(TM) Top 3 answers...
#3. Why would anyone want to be dick cheese?
#2. We concede, only you have the qualifications to be Steve Job's dick cheese
#1 You see Jobs as a "higher order being" - but he still has dick cheese???
Thanks for playing Family Feud (TM). Come back again real soon now for more Apple(TM) drama. It's cheaper than an opera ticket, and you won't have buyer's remorse or be regarded as a total douche for bragging about attending it.
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of them, that identifies and distinguishes the source of a trademark. Names of people and companies, business logos and symbols, and particular sounds can all be trademarked. Everything from Julia Roberts' name, the Nike "swoosh," and the NBC chimes are registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Trademarks identify a product, service, person, or thing from others in the same field, and trademark infringement has, and always will be, a serious offense.
Designer Ralph Lauren has had his name trademarked since 1972 for added protection. Fashion designer Donna Karan found her trademark useful when she fell victim to a dispute over her name.
Seriously, don't you know how to use the internet? Or haven't you even followed the news, how both Russia and China have granted trademarks on the Trump name?
There are some who post links to pics claiming they're of me, but anyone who wants to do a search can find video of me being interviewed on the news, and it's SO not me, so I don't care. It's juvenile behaviour from bullies who act that way because "the best defense is a good offense", and if they can get people to be afraid of them, they won't get attacked, because underneath the "bro culture" veneer, they're insecure immature idiots.
I've been very tempted to up-mod some of the worst attacks from logged-in users to give them higher visibility, because there's a lot of denial of the pervasiveness of both misogyny and transmisogyny, and such posts are evidence that's hard to deny. Unfortunately, that's too subtle for them, so I just reply once in a while, knowing that will also make the parent post more visible.
That's usually good enough for others to down-mod the user, while still keeping their stupidity in the public eye.
One thing most of them fail to realize is that their posts, once on the Internet, are there forever. They're being slurped up by government and industry, and posts that are currently not traceable will be retroactively. At some point even a VPN won't protect you. Companies like Netflix are actively working to subvert such anonymity because there's enough money on the table to make it a worthwhile endeavour. Good luck getting a date when a simple search reveals how you really feel about women:-) Or a job when you're a risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit. Or when the cops pick you up for harassment.
These "brogrammers" are really stupid. Like Alexandre Casez, what they can get away with in 2014 can be unmasked in 2017, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes completely automated.
Also, I suspect many of them never actually worked in the industry - they're just wankers.
There have been days when there are more than 100 such posts distributed throughout various stories - or even in one story. It doesn't bother me because I know who I am. I'm very much aware of my imperfections, and I admit to them, so what's the big deal. I have no secrets, so it's not like they'll ever "discover" anything that can be used to embarrass me.
Now this isn't to say I'm against privacy - to the contrary, I'm very much in favour of the individual's right to privacy, as well as freedom of speech, except for speech that incites hatred. These rights are not "natural rights", but human rights, defined by humans, and as such we get to decide what the limits are. It has to be balanced against accountability. As such, people who post anonymously really can't be taken seriously because they're hiding from being accountable. If they won't take themselves seriously, why should anyone else?
Different countries strike different balances. This is an example of a very unbalanced system of human rights:
The five teenagers, aged 14 to 16, can be heard laughing as they record more than two minutes of the man struggling to stay afloat in a pond near his family's home.
The boys can be heard taunting the man, saying that he was "going to die."
"Ain't nobody going to help you, you dumb bitch. You shouldn't have got in there," one of the boys says.
When the victim, Jamel Dunn, 31, slips beneath the water, a voice can be heard saying "he dead" and there is laughing.
One of the teens then suggested calling police but was dismissed by his friends.
Here the law makes it clear that everyone has a legal obligation to come to the assistance of someone in distress. Contrast that to this:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a 2012 legal argument, summarized that across the U.S. there's no general duty to render aid to someone in distress.
On Friday, the office of State Attorney Phil Archer issued a statement saying that charges were unlikely.
"We were asked to make a preliminary review of the video regarding any potential charges for failure to provide aid," the state attorney's office said. "Unfortunately, there is currently no statute in Florida law that compels an individual to render, request or seek aid for a person in distress. We are, however, continuing to research whether any other statute may apply to the facts of this case."
This depraved indifference extends throughout the US justice system
"You don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you," Kennedy said in arguments on the Affordable Care Act.
Kennedy added that there are "some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule."
There's a real need to either scrap the constitution and begin from scratch, or split the country up. Then again, it won't see the tricentenial, not with people feeling they have no obligations towards each other, even when someone is dying and needs help - and kids are learning they don't even have to do something as simple as call 911.
NOW - Whatever is bugging you it appears you're taking it out on me (or trying to)!
Nothing in this thread warrants such a reply, sooooo - that's one of the reasons I am against net anonymity - it's hard to prove that any particular post is from who they claim it is. Or even from the same user/account. So I'm going to ignore this outburst
It'ss ridiculous on its' face. Either it's some troll pretending to be apk or it's not, but either way it's a troll, so what do I care? (except to make note of it for those following along trying to figure wtf is going on).
Why? Would you work for the Trump Whitehouse? It's looking more and more like a short-term job with long-term pain. When 6 months in the President is twittering about how he has the power to pardon anyone, including himself (that last is a subject of much debate) Trump is forgetting that you only give pardons to crooks. Even hinting that he is thinking of pardoning himself is a freudian slip - an admission that he is a crook. Reminiscent of this guy, who said he did not profit from public service, did not obstruct justice, and was not a crook.
Will it prove that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce?
You're wrong. If the government registers a nickname, it's legal. Trademark law supercedes* the ToS. since a ToS cannot relieve you of your statutory rights. That's the law. Same as any other provision of any ToS that goes against the law or public order. Same as any clause saying you'll give them your first-born is invalid. If you don't like it, you're free to put your money where your mouth is by going to court to contest it. Anything less is kind of pointless.
Here's my question - what is the big deal with everyone going nuts over this guy? What do you get out of it? I know that when I beat up on the trolls who attack me that I enjoy the mental exercise, and it sometimes gives me a better insight into the minds of transmisogynists, plus it shows we're not going to take sh*t-shaming from anyone. But what are you all looking for? What are you hoping to achieve? Because I keep seeing these pointless tirades, and I just don't get it. It appears to have a lot in common with the people who attack me just for being me. It's also counter-productive, because after a while you're only generating sympathy for the target of your attacks. Nobody respects a bully.
* no, "supercedes" is not a spelling mistake - it's a legit alternate spelling. Most of the world doesn't use American English.
Exactly. But people like conspiracies. The majority of stuff looking strange are because they are strange, caused either by coincidences or pure stupidity/arrogance. The number of real life conspiracies is very, very low.
And they're reply "that's what they want you to think." Just reply "Could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over all the voices in my head." Either they'll realize you're making fun of them and STFU, or they'll believe you and STFU. Win-win.:-)
Thanks. BTW, this is an example from yesterday of trolling. Trying to get an angry emotional response from the intended victim is the goal. What emotional need it fulfills in the troll is a matter of much debate. Part of the problem is that both anonymity and pseudo-anonymity have been shown to lower people's inhibitions towards antisocial behaviour.
Subsequently, people carry this same behaviour to all their internet transactions out of habit, which explains the sewer that is Facebook. And it then feeds on itself. Same as the trolls elsewhere. That's why we say "don't feed the trolls." They feed off of negative emotions. Far more fun to troll them back - and tell them that's exactly what you're doing. Drives them nutszo:-)
And for prior generations, we did things like go to the bathroom, wash the dishes, put away the laundry... longer ad breaks would let us start making a meal (I know, "what's 'making a meal' anyway? is that like nuking a pizza pocket?")
He didn't violate the ToS. Search it. The term spam doesn't occur anywhere therein. What IS covered is disrupting the service (such as posting lots of spammy content). However, that is not what happened here.
In other words, he didn't access a computer system without authorization, or exceed the authorized level of access. So much for the CFAA. You might actually want to read it some time.
I've already had to deal with one schizoid who killed right in front of me. I'm well aware that I'm lucky to be alive. As for living in a privileged place, yes I do. It's called Canada. Even our right-wing politicians are to the left of what passes for "liberal" in the states. A real "liberal-thinking" US government would bring in universal health care. The dems had a chance with Sanders, and they did everything to make it not happen.
Slashdot Mirror
GIGO still applies.
It's still spelled correctly in my friends list - go look it up, you fraud. Oh, wait, can anonymous cowards even see my friends list? I know they can't see my sig. Tsk tsk, you really need to get an account to play along properly.
Simple - he puts the first on in spam, and when the person wonders why he never got it and tries to sign up to the same account using the same email, it disappears.
A more aggressive (I don't like the word "proactive" - it's kind of contrived in most situations) approach is to set up filters for all emails that have variants of his user name. For example, if his user name is john.doe he can set up filters to block anything with jdoe, johndoe1, and any other user names that have ended up going to him, because it's possible that over time some other John Doe will make the same mistake.
The only "hysteria" is everyone laughing, because Trump IS hysterical. I've heard of sore losers, but sore winners? He's already channeling Nixon, who said "I have never profited from public service, I did not obstruct justice, and I am not a crook." And he's already saying he can pardon himself, a step even Nixon never dared take.
There's a reason why it only took Trump 6 months to drop to the same level of popularity as it took 6 years for Nixon.
Since neither party cared for the average citizen, they both deserve what's coming to them. Trump is like the Titanic - a warning to those who follow. Hopefully it will be heeded. If not, well, either way, the voters will get the government they deserve because they voted for it, and it was the voters who allowed 40 years of trickle-down politics and economics.
From the comments, I'd say that es, there really are people who are that brain-dead. They forget that they couldn't get their name because they signed up later, so used a letter or a number to differentiate it, and now just blithely give your email addy because they forget to include the extra symbol.
That's one of the advantages of being an early adopter - you get to use your name. If you forget your name, you're too far gone to be using email anyway.
GMail treats embedded dots in the name portion as identical to the name without the embedded dot. my.name@example.org is the same as myname@example.org. Check (1) that the tld is identical - gmail.es (spain) isn't the same as gmail.py. (paraguay). Also check that the characters in the name portion really are identical, and not just appearing so in your browser because of font substitution. One way to do this is reply to it and see if the reply goes to you as well. If not, then the local parts are not in fact the same, even if they look the same on your system.
Also, standard fonts allow lots of substitutions that look the same but aren't. For example, BankOfArnerica is NOT the same as BankOfAmerica. The first one is spam bait (if you can't see the difference, cut-n-paste it into an editor and select fixed-width font).
The dating sites, Uber, etc., are signing you up from a list of email addresses that have been harvested. If for some stupid reason you log in, they don't have to show you any ToS because they can claim you already saw it "when you signed up." The dating sites will attempt to bill you, and Uber ... it's Uber, so what do you expect except sleaze?
Why bother. Just mark it as spam. Eventually they'll need to reset their password or otherwise confirm their identity, and fail. If they ever contact you when they realize their mistake, mark that as spam too. They'll be like the protagonist in "I have no mouth and I must scream." Never heard again.
It's gmail. Just report it as spam. Problem solved.
You know, you never earned the right in your life (and you never will) even to be his dick cheese
Let's play Family Feud(TM) ...
Top 3 answers
#3. Why would anyone want to be dick cheese?
#2. We concede, only you have the qualifications to be Steve Job's dick cheese
#1 You see Jobs as a "higher order being" - but he still has dick cheese???
Thanks for playing Family Feud (TM). Come back again real soon now for more Apple(TM) drama. It's cheaper than an opera ticket, and you won't have buyer's remorse or be regarded as a total douche for bragging about attending it.
Tell that to Kleenex.
creimer had no trademark on cdreimer, there are hundreds of people called cdreimer. You can't trademark or copyright a name.
Bottom line: you can't trust Slashdot, they are arbitrary. They let thousands of AC spam and hate messages through but cancelled cdreimer.
What is it with all this non-factual legal nonsense that is easily contradicted by a simple search? You most certainly CAN trademark a name, pretty much all over the world
A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of them, that identifies and distinguishes the source of a trademark. Names of people and companies, business logos and symbols, and particular sounds can all be trademarked. Everything from Julia Roberts' name, the Nike "swoosh," and the NBC chimes are registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office. Trademarks identify a product, service, person, or thing from others in the same field, and trademark infringement has, and always will be, a serious offense.
Designer Ralph Lauren has had his name trademarked since 1972 for added protection. Fashion designer Donna Karan found her trademark useful when she fell victim to a dispute over her name.
Seriously, don't you know how to use the internet? Or haven't you even followed the news, how both Russia and China have granted trademarks on the Trump name?
There are some who post links to pics claiming they're of me, but anyone who wants to do a search can find video of me being interviewed on the news, and it's SO not me, so I don't care. It's juvenile behaviour from bullies who act that way because "the best defense is a good offense", and if they can get people to be afraid of them, they won't get attacked, because underneath the "bro culture" veneer, they're insecure immature idiots.
I've been very tempted to up-mod some of the worst attacks from logged-in users to give them higher visibility, because there's a lot of denial of the pervasiveness of both misogyny and transmisogyny, and such posts are evidence that's hard to deny. Unfortunately, that's too subtle for them, so I just reply once in a while, knowing that will also make the parent post more visible.
That's usually good enough for others to down-mod the user, while still keeping their stupidity in the public eye.
One thing most of them fail to realize is that their posts, once on the Internet, are there forever. They're being slurped up by government and industry, and posts that are currently not traceable will be retroactively. At some point even a VPN won't protect you. Companies like Netflix are actively working to subvert such anonymity because there's enough money on the table to make it a worthwhile endeavour. Good luck getting a date when a simple search reveals how you really feel about women :-) Or a job when you're a risk for a sexual harassment lawsuit. Or when the cops pick you up for harassment.
These "brogrammers" are really stupid. Like Alexandre Casez, what they can get away with in 2014 can be unmasked in 2017, and it's only a matter of time before it becomes completely automated.
Also, I suspect many of them never actually worked in the industry - they're just wankers.
There have been days when there are more than 100 such posts distributed throughout various stories - or even in one story. It doesn't bother me because I know who I am. I'm very much aware of my imperfections, and I admit to them, so what's the big deal. I have no secrets, so it's not like they'll ever "discover" anything that can be used to embarrass me.
Now this isn't to say I'm against privacy - to the contrary, I'm very much in favour of the individual's right to privacy, as well as freedom of speech, except for speech that incites hatred. These rights are not "natural rights", but human rights, defined by humans, and as such we get to decide what the limits are. It has to be balanced against accountability. As such, people who post anonymously really can't be taken seriously because they're hiding from being accountable. If they won't take themselves seriously, why should anyone else?
Different countries strike different balances. This is an example of a very unbalanced system of human rights:
The five teenagers, aged 14 to 16, can be heard laughing as they record more than two minutes of the man struggling to stay afloat in a pond near his family's home.
The boys can be heard taunting the man, saying that he was "going to die."
"Ain't nobody going to help you, you dumb bitch. You shouldn't have got in there," one of the boys says.
When the victim, Jamel Dunn, 31, slips beneath the water, a voice can be heard saying "he dead" and there is laughing.
One of the teens then suggested calling police but was dismissed by his friends.
Here the law makes it clear that everyone has a legal obligation to come to the assistance of someone in distress. Contrast that to this:
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a 2012 legal argument, summarized that across the U.S. there's no general duty to render aid to someone in distress.
On Friday, the office of State Attorney Phil Archer issued a statement saying that charges were unlikely.
"We were asked to make a preliminary review of the video regarding any potential charges for failure to provide aid," the state attorney's office said. "Unfortunately, there is currently no statute in Florida law that compels an individual to render, request or seek aid for a person in distress. We are, however, continuing to research whether any other statute may apply to the facts of this case."
This depraved indifference extends throughout the US justice system
"You don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you," Kennedy said in arguments on the Affordable Care Act.
Kennedy added that there are "some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule."
There's a real need to either scrap the constitution and begin from scratch, or split the country up. Then again, it won't see the tricentenial, not with people feeling they have no obligations towards each other, even when someone is dying and needs help - and kids are learning they don't even have to do something as simple as call 911.
NOW - Whatever is bugging you it appears you're taking it out on me (or trying to)!
Nothing in this thread warrants such a reply, sooooo - that's one of the reasons I am against net anonymity - it's hard to prove that any particular post is from who they claim it is. Or even from the same user/account. So I'm going to ignore this outburst
It'ss ridiculous on its' face. Either it's some troll pretending to be apk or it's not, but either way it's a troll, so what do I care? (except to make note of it for those following along trying to figure wtf is going on).
What a waste of oxygen.
Why? Would you work for the Trump Whitehouse? It's looking more and more like a short-term job with long-term pain. When 6 months in the President is twittering about how he has the power to pardon anyone, including himself (that last is a subject of much debate) Trump is forgetting that you only give pardons to crooks. Even hinting that he is thinking of pardoning himself is a freudian slip - an admission that he is a crook. Reminiscent of this guy, who said he did not profit from public service, did not obstruct justice, and was not a crook.
Will it prove that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce?
BTW - case in point. I friended criemer as a reaction to all this bs. Your attacks generated sympathy for your target.
You're wrong. If the government registers a nickname, it's legal. Trademark law supercedes* the ToS. since a ToS cannot relieve you of your statutory rights. That's the law. Same as any other provision of any ToS that goes against the law or public order. Same as any clause saying you'll give them your first-born is invalid. If you don't like it, you're free to put your money where your mouth is by going to court to contest it. Anything less is kind of pointless.
Here's my question - what is the big deal with everyone going nuts over this guy? What do you get out of it? I know that when I beat up on the trolls who attack me that I enjoy the mental exercise, and it sometimes gives me a better insight into the minds of transmisogynists, plus it shows we're not going to take sh*t-shaming from anyone. But what are you all looking for? What are you hoping to achieve? Because I keep seeing these pointless tirades, and I just don't get it. It appears to have a lot in common with the people who attack me just for being me. It's also counter-productive, because after a while you're only generating sympathy for the target of your attacks. Nobody respects a bully.
* no, "supercedes" is not a spelling mistake - it's a legit alternate spelling. Most of the world doesn't use American English.
Exactly. But people like conspiracies. The majority of stuff looking strange are because they are strange, caused either by coincidences or pure stupidity/arrogance. The number of real life conspiracies is very, very low.
And they're reply "that's what they want you to think." Just reply "Could you repeat that? I couldn't hear you over all the voices in my head." Either they'll realize you're making fun of them and STFU, or they'll believe you and STFU. Win-win. :-)
Thanks. BTW, this is an example from yesterday of trolling. Trying to get an angry emotional response from the intended victim is the goal. What emotional need it fulfills in the troll is a matter of much debate. Part of the problem is that both anonymity and pseudo-anonymity have been shown to lower people's inhibitions towards antisocial behaviour.
Subsequently, people carry this same behaviour to all their internet transactions out of habit, which explains the sewer that is Facebook. And it then feeds on itself. Same as the trolls elsewhere. That's why we say "don't feed the trolls." They feed off of negative emotions. Far more fun to troll them back - and tell them that's exactly what you're doing. Drives them nutszo :-)
And for prior generations, we did things like go to the bathroom, wash the dishes, put away the laundry ... longer ad breaks would let us start making a meal (I know, "what's 'making a meal' anyway? is that like nuking a pizza pocket?")
5 or 6 seconds for an ad is way more attention than I give them. I guess it will take a while before they learn to become "ad blind."
I should think that having no balls is a feature for m2f transsexuals, not a bug. :-)
He didn't violate the ToS. Search it. The term spam doesn't occur anywhere therein. What IS covered is disrupting the service (such as posting lots of spammy content). However, that is not what happened here.
In other words, he didn't access a computer system without authorization, or exceed the authorized level of access. So much for the CFAA. You might actually want to read it some time.
I've already had to deal with one schizoid who killed right in front of me. I'm well aware that I'm lucky to be alive. As for living in a privileged place, yes I do. It's called Canada. Even our right-wing politicians are to the left of what passes for "liberal" in the states. A real "liberal-thinking" US government would bring in universal health care. The dems had a chance with Sanders, and they did everything to make it not happen.