If I were publishing a paper on something that could lead to a serious pile of greenbacks, you can be damn sure my paper is going to exclude some details that would prevent others from monetizing off of my work...
After all, science these days is not solely for the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Research is bought and paid for, and like any venture capital, the investments are expected to pay off.
Just as we know his running mate would want to impose the christian version of sharia law on the country, letting the bible dictate what goes on inside the doors of everyone's homes.
And don't forget the damage that they would both do to the environment in the pursuit of fossil fuels...
Both sides are dirty and offer up offensive and distasteful positions, and it's no wonder that people are finding it easier to vote against the candidates rather than for either one.
The point of my post was not to favor one side or the other, even though I have a preference.
I have no problem if someone advocates for the platforms or positions of a candidate or against them. Those are legitimate positions to take since each side has a record of positions and statements to look at.
The shitposting, though, there's no place for it. Sure folks find one or both candidates distasteful, but when you create and post inflammatory and incorrect materials in order to sway uninformed voters incorrectly, that's just wrong. I wouldn't support a Clinton supporter posting a picture of Trump arm in arms with a white-hooded KKK guy on one side and Hitler on the other, and I also don't support the shitposts this guy has done against Clinton.
Go after them on what they've done, they've earned it. Go after both sides, her email server and foundation influence. Go after his long litany of fraudulent activities and the self dealing by his foundation. Both sides are slimy as all get out and there is enough there to use against them. No reason to create inflammatory materials because that takes us all down.
This is not a game. Slandering either side because you think it will be fun is not cool.
Having millions of dollars means you can afford to buy yourself out of whatever damage either side might actually impose.
But shitposting to sway the election affects a lot of people who can't afford to buy their way out of damage that either side can do.
If you want to spend your money showing why your guy is better for the economy or your girl is better for foreign diplomacy, have at it. The more information people have, the more informed their vote will be.
But junk like "too big to jail" or "wearing a white power tie" is just trash that makes everyone look bad, including you.
Here's a list of places where my ewallet doesn't work:
Drive thrus - I'm not giving some unknown person my phone even when I'm sitting there in the drive thru.
Amazon, etc. - I do more shopping online than in any brick and mortar shop and ewallet doesn't work there at all.
Most of the brick and mortar stores I do shop at - They just don't support any ewallet purchases.
So it really doesn't matter if I were excited about ewallets or not - since I can't use them at any of the places I shop, of course I too only have a 1% usage rate. So it's certainly not my fault, it's the poor implementation of ewallets.
The thought was that the populace at large could be swayed towards a charismatic yet evil candidate. The populace at large could elect the delegates, but the thought was that as "insiders" they would be less influenced by charm and would choose a candidate using reason instead of emotion.
You can make an argument that Trump or Bernie represent this sort of scenario, that voters are choosing them over other candidates for reasons of emotion, out of anger with current insiders or have fallen sway to the candidate's charm. The delegates, as experienced representatives, are supposed to be less influenced by charm and would use wisdom to back a different candidate.
So the delegates are meant to rescue us and the republic from the rise of extremists or demagogues.
While this is how it was designed to work, over time the concept has become corrupted by money, influence and power. It's hard to say whether any of the candidates or the public at large is getting more of the shaft over the system now.
I have a NUC, a nice little 4x4x2 form factor running linux. Great little thing takes up no space on my desktop. This new one is twice as wide. Too bad they couldn't keep the current size...
Developer David Bolton has moved on from Dice and the remaining authors have been left scrambling trying to pull his notes and articles etc together to generate new content. They report having difficulty understanding how he cobbled together the disparate information into existing articles and have advocated just rewriting the articles from the ground up so they would be easier to maintain going forward.
Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising. Malware is defined by its malicious intent, acting against the requirements of the computer user, and does not include software that causes unintentional harm due to some deficiency. - Wikipedia.
That's what this whole windows 10 upgrade thing is.
I've been programming for quite awhile and honestly I'm in the verbose commenting camp.
Not because I'm worried about code reviews, handing the code off to anyone else or even following some company's arbitrary rules on how things should be documented.
I use verbose comments so I don't have to remember what was done and why it was done that way. Frankly I've got too many other things that I'd rather remember.
Granted verbose comments will make my code seem pretty old school, but I have yet to hear any questions from someone who picked up my code after I've left it.
And I can go back to code and know what I was doing even if it was 5 years ago. Now I may laugh at myself and be amazed at just how much I didn't know even then, but I will totally understand what's in the code without having to guess.
I watched with horror the impact of 9/11 just like many other Americans.
But I never offered to give up my privacy for a false sense of security. I never felt the Iraq war was justified and wouldn't have believed so even if they did find WMD (given the hawks involved, though, it's no wonder we went to war without there being any WMD).
Unfortunately too many people were fooled into believing that giving up their privacy and going to war with Iraq was the only way to get our security back. The fear mongering that has prevailed in most of our political discussions since 9/11 have consistently pushed for massive surveillance in the face of evidence showing that even through the worst of the bulk surveillance exposed by Snowden that no actionable intelligence had ever been gathered.
Personally I don't believe Carly or HP were doing anything for the benefit of the country; I'm sure the NSA was willing to pay a premium to get hardware as soon as possible and Carly/HP would have been more than happy to cash the NSA checks. That means that I don't necessarily believe that they did it for any personal reason worthy of attack, I think that it was just a business decision that anyone in the same position would have made.
It'll be entirely optional when the feature is available.
His plan is to only allow ads that adhere to the acceptableads.org manifesto. As a "man in the middle" I don't see how he can determine which ads satisfy the manifesto. He cannot determine if the ads disrupt or distort a page, can't determine if the ads are being transparent about being ads, can't determine that they're shouting at us or are annoying and also cannot determine if the ads are appropriate for the site being viewed.
So basically he's either lying to customers (by taking money from the advertisers and allowing the ads through w/o all of this analysis) or he's fooling himself into thinking he can systematically determine the ads satisfy the manifesto on the fly while rendering web content.
The take away is that he's selling out to develop this "optional" feature to allow ads. That means he's one update away from at first removing the "optional" aspect of the feature and eventually turning his registered user base into a target for ad delivery.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to carry some cash, like $40 or something, in case you actually do get robbed.
Someone hard up for cash that is desperate enough to walk up and mug you will be even more aggressive if they get nothing out of it.
Having some token cash to turn over will satisfy their immediate need and usually end the transaction without physical harm.
If I were publishing a paper on something that could lead to a serious pile of greenbacks, you can be damn sure my paper is going to exclude some details that would prevent others from monetizing off of my work...
After all, science these days is not solely for the pursuit of truth and knowledge. Research is bought and paid for, and like any venture capital, the investments are expected to pay off.
Would you like fries with that?
Just as we know his running mate would want to impose the christian version of sharia law on the country, letting the bible dictate what goes on inside the doors of everyone's homes.
And don't forget the damage that they would both do to the environment in the pursuit of fossil fuels...
Both sides are dirty and offer up offensive and distasteful positions, and it's no wonder that people are finding it easier to vote against the candidates rather than for either one.
The point of my post was not to favor one side or the other, even though I have a preference.
I have no problem if someone advocates for the platforms or positions of a candidate or against them. Those are legitimate positions to take since each side has a record of positions and statements to look at.
The shitposting, though, there's no place for it. Sure folks find one or both candidates distasteful, but when you create and post inflammatory and incorrect materials in order to sway uninformed voters incorrectly, that's just wrong. I wouldn't support a Clinton supporter posting a picture of Trump arm in arms with a white-hooded KKK guy on one side and Hitler on the other, and I also don't support the shitposts this guy has done against Clinton.
Go after them on what they've done, they've earned it. Go after both sides, her email server and foundation influence. Go after his long litany of fraudulent activities and the self dealing by his foundation. Both sides are slimy as all get out and there is enough there to use against them. No reason to create inflammatory materials because that takes us all down.
This is not a game. Slandering either side because you think it will be fun is not cool.
Having millions of dollars means you can afford to buy yourself out of whatever damage either side might actually impose.
But shitposting to sway the election affects a lot of people who can't afford to buy their way out of damage that either side can do.
If you want to spend your money showing why your guy is better for the economy or your girl is better for foreign diplomacy, have at it. The more information people have, the more informed their vote will be.
But junk like "too big to jail" or "wearing a white power tie" is just trash that makes everyone look bad, including you.
Here's a list of places where my ewallet doesn't work:
So it really doesn't matter if I were excited about ewallets or not - since I can't use them at any of the places I shop, of course I too only have a 1% usage rate. So it's certainly not my fault, it's the poor implementation of ewallets.
How about focusing on making edge more standards-compliant instead of worrying about battery?
Liferay is a solid enterprise platform that incorporates CMS functionality.
Each state has it's own process, but basically by obfuscation.
For example, some states have a primary later followed by an actual delegate election that most folks either don't or can't attend.
Some states the primary includes the election of delegates, but it's mostly blind in that you get a list of names but no idea who they actually favor.
I'm not sure any of the states have a true and open delegate election process.
The election of the delegates itself is supposed to prevent the en mass sell out of all of the delegates.
But, of course, this does assume an educated populace that knows who they're voting for, but that's a different /. story.
It is rigged, but it is rigged by design.
The thought was that the populace at large could be swayed towards a charismatic yet evil candidate. The populace at large could elect the delegates, but the thought was that as "insiders" they would be less influenced by charm and would choose a candidate using reason instead of emotion.
You can make an argument that Trump or Bernie represent this sort of scenario, that voters are choosing them over other candidates for reasons of emotion, out of anger with current insiders or have fallen sway to the candidate's charm. The delegates, as experienced representatives, are supposed to be less influenced by charm and would use wisdom to back a different candidate.
So the delegates are meant to rescue us and the republic from the rise of extremists or demagogues.
While this is how it was designed to work, over time the concept has become corrupted by money, influence and power. It's hard to say whether any of the candidates or the public at large is getting more of the shaft over the system now.
I have a NUC, a nice little 4x4x2 form factor running linux. Great little thing takes up no space on my desktop. This new one is twice as wide. Too bad they couldn't keep the current size...
It's about SO trying to more eyes on the site and raise their ad revenue further.
"Hmm, where did the dev get this code? Oh, I see, from SO. Let me go to the link and see what else was said..."
Anyone who buys that "we're only thinking of the code submitters' rights" crap is just fooling themselves.
Developer David Bolton has moved on from Dice and the remaining authors have been left scrambling trying to pull his notes and articles etc together to generate new content. They report having difficulty understanding how he cobbled together the disparate information into existing articles and have advocated just rewriting the articles from the ground up so they would be easier to maintain going forward.
It's MALWARE:
Malware, short for malicious software, is any software used to disrupt computer operations, gather sensitive information, gain access to private computer systems, or display unwanted advertising. Malware is defined by its malicious intent, acting against the requirements of the computer user, and does not include software that causes unintentional harm due to some deficiency. - Wikipedia.
That's what this whole windows 10 upgrade thing is.
Let them spend a full winter in NH and we'll see just how many stick around.
Will give new meaning to the Blue Screen of Death!
I've been programming for quite awhile and honestly I'm in the verbose commenting camp.
Not because I'm worried about code reviews, handing the code off to anyone else or even following some company's arbitrary rules on how things should be documented.
I use verbose comments so I don't have to remember what was done and why it was done that way. Frankly I've got too many other things that I'd rather remember.
Granted verbose comments will make my code seem pretty old school, but I have yet to hear any questions from someone who picked up my code after I've left it.
And I can go back to code and know what I was doing even if it was 5 years ago. Now I may laugh at myself and be amazed at just how much I didn't know even then, but I will totally understand what's in the code without having to guess.
I watched with horror the impact of 9/11 just like many other Americans.
But I never offered to give up my privacy for a false sense of security. I never felt the Iraq war was justified and wouldn't have believed so even if they did find WMD (given the hawks involved, though, it's no wonder we went to war without there being any WMD).
Unfortunately too many people were fooled into believing that giving up their privacy and going to war with Iraq was the only way to get our security back. The fear mongering that has prevailed in most of our political discussions since 9/11 have consistently pushed for massive surveillance in the face of evidence showing that even through the worst of the bulk surveillance exposed by Snowden that no actionable intelligence had ever been gathered.
Personally I don't believe Carly or HP were doing anything for the benefit of the country; I'm sure the NSA was willing to pay a premium to get hardware as soon as possible and Carly/HP would have been more than happy to cash the NSA checks. That means that I don't necessarily believe that they did it for any personal reason worthy of attack, I think that it was just a business decision that anyone in the same position would have made.
No they won't, those are being backported to win 7 and 8.
His argument is:
It'll be entirely optional when the feature is available.
His plan is to only allow ads that adhere to the acceptableads.org manifesto. As a "man in the middle" I don't see how he can determine which ads satisfy the manifesto. He cannot determine if the ads disrupt or distort a page, can't determine if the ads are being transparent about being ads, can't determine that they're shouting at us or are annoying and also cannot determine if the ads are appropriate for the site being viewed.
So basically he's either lying to customers (by taking money from the advertisers and allowing the ads through w/o all of this analysis) or he's fooling himself into thinking he can systematically determine the ads satisfy the manifesto on the fly while rendering web content.
The take away is that he's selling out to develop this "optional" feature to allow ads. That means he's one update away from at first removing the "optional" aspect of the feature and eventually turning his registered user base into a target for ad delivery.
And look at what a positive space we have here!
What happens to morale when these socially backward male programmers fall in love with and then get turned down by the programming cheerleaders?
Pinheaded? Must be Bennett's ancestors...