PO number and invoice number, please, boss. And I've checked the system and there are no outstanding invoices from [companyname].
If you read the article, you'll see that one of their techniques is to watch your inbox for a legitimate invoice, then change the payment information on that invoice to their bank.
So, yes, there will be a PO number and an invoice number.
What is described here is an invoice scam (or "billing scam").
https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/buying-or-selling/false-billing
https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud-az-invoice-scams
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/consumer/Publications/FakeInvoices.asp
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/02/phishers-send-fake-invoices
Maybe it says that somewhere else. I was discussing the Community Code of Conduct, which is on a page labelled Community Code of Conduct, with a url llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.htm. The text you say it "says explicitly" does not appear on that page.
Here's some data: by an informal count of gender-recognizable top 1000 kernel contributors to Linux kernel I did several years ago, there were 8 women (I recognize western and slavic names, first names I didn't recognize were skipped). A more thorough count of all "key" packages (as defined by testing migration criteria) in Debian Stretch, where I tried to guess gender based on first name, ldap, ~60 seconds of web search for that person -- shown 0.9% of last uploaders being female, with each female having only 60% packages on the average (although, with low population of data, this last figure might be not significant enough).
your data is interesting. You go on to make a conclusion, however, that is not based in any way on that data. You conclude "Thus, I believe this is approximately the natural gender ratio of skilled software engineers." However, your data would just as reasonably fit a conclusion "Thus, I believe that there are things in the software community that discriminate against women and drive women away from the community."
Since one of the things he was objecting to was a code of conduct saying
Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:
Violent threats or language directed against another person.
Discriminatory jokes and language.
Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”).
Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
Unwelcome sexual attention.
Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
I think he doesn't have any interest in solving this problem.
Let's be clear. That organization practices reverse discrimination in order to bring more women and minorities into the industry.
And that purported "reverse" discrimination consisted of a single internship set aside for somebody who is not a heterosexual white male.
That's it: one internship.
If he's triggered by having even a single internship devoted to trying to address barriers to entry for women and minorities, I'll say that this wasn't the problem; it's just the excuse he's giving.
I get it, and I agree with him. If I were the main creator of something, and suddenly instead of being all about code, working out logic facts and figures everything started to be about how people 'feel' then I'd get the hell away from that hot mess too.
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?! What is the world coming to? Everybody knows that the best programmers are assholes and enjoy being assholes, right? And that makes better code: when you drive out the people who can't take being insulted and belittled, only the strong survive, and are better programmers for it.
...Oh, and they're participating in an outreach program to encourage under-represented demographics to participate in open source project. I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Yes... an outreach program that was planning to hire one (1) intern from an underrepresented population.
I have to say, looking at the Community Code of Conduct he's objecting to, I'm finding it hard to figure out what exactly he doesn't like. This is the code of conduct:
be friendly and patient,
be welcoming,
be considerate,
be respectful,
be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others, and
when we disagree, try to understand why.
the only part of this that I can possibly think he might object to is the fifth one, which some people might consider suppressing free speech, but this is elaborated in the next paragraph as meaning:
Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren’t acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to:
Violent threats or language directed against another person.
Discriminatory jokes and language.
Posting sexually explicit or violent material.
Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”).
Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms.
Unwelcome sexual attention.
Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
all of which seem reasonable. If he wants to violate what seems to be pretty bare-minimum standards of what should be considered acceptable behavior, I'd say that he should leave the community. And not join a different one.
Earlier this year, Bezos told reporters at a space symposium that he sells about $1 billion per year worth of Amazon stock to fund the company, according to Reuters...
Following your argument, no-one would ever get in a car and drive it down the street.
If you want to be risk free, that's correct.
Demanding that you must be risk free in all activities means never doing any activities.
Pharma companies make their money from introducing new drugs. They are not going to stop that just because the risks are higher. Instead, they will find ways to manage the risk.
The post I was responding to was talking about approval of drugs for use. That's not up to the pharmaceutical companies.
It's a catch 22. The FDA usual process is slow and plodding but results in medications and medical procedures which are generally safe and effective by reducing as much risk as possible. However it takes a LONG time to perform all the necessary studies and clinical trials and critically ill patients die while they wait. The catch is that if you are trying to get approval for a novel medication that saves lives of the critically ill, how do you justify the delay needed to do all the safety and effectiveness studies? People will die if you don't try, but you might also kill and/or cure. What to do?
What you should do is put all the responsibility for making a mistake on the bureaucrats responsible for safety protocols, and all the costs associated with those safety protocols should be borne by the drug manufacturers.
You do realize that higher the penalty you put on making a mistake, the result is that the people responsible for safety protocols will become more risk adverse, and no drug will ever get approved, right?
That's the only way to get 100% certainty of never making a mistake in approving a drug: making sure you never approve a drug.
There hardly is any "cosmic ray" damage outside of the solar system.
Sorry, wrong. Check your numbers.
(Yes, cosmic rays are something completely different than radiation from the sun
Exactly. They are not from the sun, and therefore it makes little difference whether you are inside or outside the solar system. To the extent that it does make a difference, though, the sun's magnetic field tends to exclude cosmic rays, and so it's the opposite of what you say: there is more cosmic radiation damage outside the solar system.
... but they are rare and hardly hit a microbe more than once in their "lifetime")
"lifetime" here means: the amount of time it would take a meteoroid to drift from one star to another. If it's a blazingly fast object, it might be as fast as maybe 30 km/sec. You work it out.
But the NRA is a $350 million dollar lobbying machine, while the "anti gun crowd" are a handful of completely unfunded people who occasionally get an editorial in a newspaper. And the NRA's agenda is black and white: any regulation of guns whatsoever is attacked as a proposal to ban all guns, and needs a vigorous political action to remove any politician who even mentions this as a possibility.
There is no "reasonable" discussion of gun regulation almost entirely because the NRA attacks any reasonable discussion as "they're coming to take our guns."
Maybe if the anti-gun crowd wanted to be reasonable, that's how gun rights would work.
Once you call them the "anti gun crowd", you have already stopped being reasonable.
The sensible gun control crowd is, in fact reasonable. But the assholes running the NRA takes anything unreasonable and amplifies it at tremendous volume to make it sound as if there are only two choices: the NRA, or "unreasonable" nuts who want to ban guns. Anything "reasonable" is ignored.
Here, for example, is the full quote from David Hogg that is being "spun" as "he wants to repeal the second amendment!":
"What a lot of the media and especially Fox News has messed up with me is they’ve made it seem like I’m trying to take away people’s guns, that I’m against the Second Amendment. My father is a retired FBI agent. I have guns in my house. I’m not against the Second Amendment I’m trying to push for common sense gun reform and mental illness reform so we can make sure that these individuals that have a criminal background that are mentally unstable and have a history of domestic violence are no longer able to get a gun
I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this. We simply want to save lives and democracy, please stand with us."
Does that count as "wanting to be reasonable"? If not, then it's really you who has decided not to be reasonable.
The payload won't make it. Bacteria is unlikely to survive in the interstellar environment long enough to "get there" (where ever there is), much less survive a reentry into a survivable atmosphere.
That might be true for extraterrestrial bacteria, but is rather unlikely.
We already know that earth bacteria survive vacuum, space trips, radiation, just fine.
Some of them survive for some time in a vacuum. They do not, however, metabolize in a vacuum: they ensporulate, or in another way go dormant. Result, they do not have any active cell repair mechanism running.
Over the length of time an interstellar journey would take, in the absence of cell repair, accumulated cosmic radiation damage would destroy pretty much any bacteria.
Uh, what did this have to do with the topic again?
Rights cone with responsibilities. If you learn how to (safely) handle a gun, you should be granted the right to do so; if you shirk your responsibilities, you should necessarily lose your rights
Maybe that's the way gun rights should work. The actual gun rights, in the U.S., are that you have a right to as many guns as you want regardless of whether you can use them safely.
Even minutes before the splash-down Western authorities were saying that the Tiangong-1 spaceship was aiming for the Atlantic, off the coast of Brazil, at 00:49 GMT, or so
No. I was following this one, and most of the authorities were actually saying we don't know exactly where it will hit, here's the latest update and the best guess for impact, which was always a wide range.
At the very end they were saying "it will enter on this orbit, here's the ground track"-- and the final orbit's ground track passed over the South Atlantic, continued over South Africa, and went on to the Pacific.
Where on that final orbit it would hit depended very sensitively on exaclty how it was oriented and how much drag and how early it would start to break apart, something difficult to predict for a relatively simple satellite and very very hard to estimate for something as complex as Taingong-1. Nobody was giving exact predictions "it will land here."
Slashdot Mirror
There are real issues out there in the world. Distracting from them by name calling is not helpful
Yeah, no.
PO number and invoice number, please, boss. And I've checked the system and there are no outstanding invoices from [companyname].
If you read the article, you'll see that one of their techniques is to watch your inbox for a legitimate invoice, then change the payment information on that invoice to their bank.
So, yes, there will be a PO number and an invoice number.
What is described here is an invoice scam (or "billing scam").
https://www.scamwatch.gov.au/types-of-scams/buying-or-selling/false-billing
https://www.actionfraud.police.uk/fraud-az-invoice-scams
https://www.ag.state.mn.us/consumer/Publications/FakeInvoices.asp
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2018/02/phishers-send-fake-invoices
Maybe it says that somewhere else. I was discussing the Community Code of Conduct, which is on a page labelled Community Code of Conduct, with a url llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.htm. The text you say it "says explicitly" does not appear on that page.
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?!
He isn't objecting to a code of conduct that only says be nice to people; it says other things too.
Yes, I already pointed this out and linked to the actual code in my first message in this thread.
Learn to read previous messages in the thread before commenting.
Here's some data: by an informal count of gender-recognizable top 1000 kernel contributors to Linux kernel I did several years ago, there were 8 women (I recognize western and slavic names, first names I didn't recognize were skipped). A more thorough count of all "key" packages (as defined by testing migration criteria) in Debian Stretch, where I tried to guess gender based on first name, ldap, ~60 seconds of web search for that person -- shown 0.9% of last uploaders being female, with each female having only 60% packages on the average (although, with low population of data, this last figure might be not significant enough).
your data is interesting. You go on to make a conclusion, however, that is not based in any way on that data. You conclude "Thus, I believe this is approximately the natural gender ratio of skilled software engineers." However, your data would just as reasonably fit a conclusion "Thus, I believe that there are things in the software community that discriminate against women and drive women away from the community."
Like, perhaps, constant and unrelenting harassment:
http://fortune.com/2018/02/06/brotopia-emily-chang-tech-sexual-harassment/
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/feb/28/google-lawsuit-sexual-harassment-bro-culture
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/04/why-is-silicon-valley-so-awful-to-women/517788/
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/23/google-bro-culture-led-to-violence-sexual-harassment-against-female-engineer-lawsuit-alleges/
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/30/technology/women-entrepreneurs-speak-out-sexual-harassment.html
Since one of the things he was objecting to was a code of conduct saying
Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren't acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to: Violent threats or language directed against another person. Discriminatory jokes and language. Posting sexually explicit or violent material. Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”). Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. Unwelcome sexual attention. Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
I think he doesn't have any interest in solving this problem.
Let's be clear. That organization practices reverse discrimination in order to bring more women and minorities into the industry.
And that purported "reverse" discrimination consisted of a single internship set aside for somebody who is not a heterosexual white male.
That's it: one internship.
If he's triggered by having even a single internship devoted to trying to address barriers to entry for women and minorities, I'll say that this wasn't the problem; it's just the excuse he's giving.
Wrong. He's leaving because of crap like this.
From the LLVM COC:
You mean, this LLVM Code of Conduct? https://llvm.org/docs/CodeOfConduct.html?
That's what set him off. One internship.
I get it, and I agree with him. If I were the main creator of something, and suddenly instead of being all about code, working out logic facts and figures everything started to be about how people 'feel' then I'd get the hell away from that hot mess too.
Yes, I agree. A code of conduct that says you should be nice to people?! What is the world coming to? Everybody knows that the best programmers are assholes and enjoy being assholes, right? And that makes better code: when you drive out the people who can't take being insulted and belittled, only the strong survive, and are better programmers for it.
...Oh, and they're participating in an outreach program to encourage under-represented demographics to participate in open source project. I guess that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Yes... an outreach program that was planning to hire one (1) intern from an underrepresented population.
One.
be friendly and patient,
be welcoming,
be considerate,
be respectful,
be careful in the words that you choose and be kind to others, and
when we disagree, try to understand why.
the only part of this that I can possibly think he might object to is the fifth one, which some people might consider suppressing free speech, but this is elaborated in the next paragraph as meaning:
Harassment and other exclusionary behavior aren’t acceptable. This includes, but is not limited to: Violent threats or language directed against another person. Discriminatory jokes and language. Posting sexually explicit or violent material. Posting (or threatening to post) other people’s personally identifying information (“doxing”). Personal insults, especially those using racist or sexist terms. Unwelcome sexual attention. Advocating for, or encouraging, any of the above behavior.
all of which seem reasonable. If he wants to violate what seems to be pretty bare-minimum standards of what should be considered acceptable behavior, I'd say that he should leave the community. And not join a different one.
Earlier this year, Bezos told reporters at a space symposium that he sells about $1 billion per year worth of Amazon stock to fund the company, according to Reuters...
Following your argument, no-one would ever get in a car and drive it down the street.
If you want to be risk free, that's correct.
Demanding that you must be risk free in all activities means never doing any activities.
Pharma companies make their money from introducing new drugs. They are not going to stop that just because the risks are higher. Instead, they will find ways to manage the risk.
The post I was responding to was talking about approval of drugs for use. That's not up to the pharmaceutical companies.
It's a catch 22. The FDA usual process is slow and plodding but results in medications and medical procedures which are generally safe and effective by reducing as much risk as possible. However it takes a LONG time to perform all the necessary studies and clinical trials and critically ill patients die while they wait. The catch is that if you are trying to get approval for a novel medication that saves lives of the critically ill, how do you justify the delay needed to do all the safety and effectiveness studies? People will die if you don't try, but you might also kill and/or cure. What to do?
What you should do is put all the responsibility for making a mistake on the bureaucrats responsible for safety protocols, and all the costs associated with those safety protocols should be borne by the drug manufacturers.
You do realize that higher the penalty you put on making a mistake, the result is that the people responsible for safety protocols will become more risk adverse, and no drug will ever get approved, right?
That's the only way to get 100% certainty of never making a mistake in approving a drug: making sure you never approve a drug.
It's a pity Stephen Hawking is no longer with us. This would undoubtably speed up the rate at which he could communicate.
There hardly is any "cosmic ray" damage outside of the solar system.
Sorry, wrong. Check your numbers.
(Yes, cosmic rays are something completely different than radiation from the sun
Exactly. They are not from the sun, and therefore it makes little difference whether you are inside or outside the solar system. To the extent that it does make a difference, though, the sun's magnetic field tends to exclude cosmic rays, and so it's the opposite of what you say: there is more cosmic radiation damage outside the solar system.
... but they are rare and hardly hit a microbe more than once in their "lifetime")
"lifetime" here means: the amount of time it would take a meteoroid to drift from one star to another. If it's a blazingly fast object, it might be as fast as maybe 30 km/sec. You work it out.
But the NRA is a $350 million dollar lobbying machine, while the "anti gun crowd" are a handful of completely unfunded people who occasionally get an editorial in a newspaper. And the NRA's agenda is black and white: any regulation of guns whatsoever is attacked as a proposal to ban all guns, and needs a vigorous political action to remove any politician who even mentions this as a possibility.
There is no "reasonable" discussion of gun regulation almost entirely because the NRA attacks any reasonable discussion as "they're coming to take our guns."
Maybe if the anti-gun crowd wanted to be reasonable, that's how gun rights would work.
Once you call them the "anti gun crowd", you have already stopped being reasonable.
The sensible gun control crowd is, in fact reasonable. But the assholes running the NRA takes anything unreasonable and amplifies it at tremendous volume to make it sound as if there are only two choices: the NRA, or "unreasonable" nuts who want to ban guns. Anything "reasonable" is ignored.
Here, for example, is the full quote from David Hogg that is being "spun" as "he wants to repeal the second amendment!":
"What a lot of the media and especially Fox News has messed up with me is they’ve made it seem like I’m trying to take away people’s guns, that I’m against the Second Amendment. My father is a retired FBI agent. I have guns in my house. I’m not against the Second Amendment I’m trying to push for common sense gun reform and mental illness reform so we can make sure that these individuals that have a criminal background that are mentally unstable and have a history of domestic violence are no longer able to get a gun
I don’t understand what’s so hard to understand about this. We simply want to save lives and democracy, please stand with us."
Does that count as "wanting to be reasonable"? If not, then it's really you who has decided not to be reasonable.
The payload won't make it. Bacteria is unlikely to survive in the interstellar environment long enough to "get there" (where ever there is), much less survive a reentry into a survivable atmosphere.
That might be true for extraterrestrial bacteria, but is rather unlikely. We already know that earth bacteria survive vacuum, space trips, radiation, just fine.
Some of them survive for some time in a vacuum. They do not, however, metabolize in a vacuum: they ensporulate, or in another way go dormant. Result, they do not have any active cell repair mechanism running.
Over the length of time an interstellar journey would take, in the absence of cell repair, accumulated cosmic radiation damage would destroy pretty much any bacteria.
Uh, what did this have to do with the topic again?
Rights cone with responsibilities. If you learn how to (safely) handle a gun, you should be granted the right to do so; if you shirk your responsibilities, you should necessarily lose your rights
Maybe that's the way gun rights should work. The actual gun rights, in the U.S., are that you have a right to as many guns as you want regardless of whether you can use them safely.
What he points out is that people click "yes" to usage agreements and terms of service without reading them, and as an example, links to a test where the terms of service explicitly state giving up your first-born child... and people still agreed to them.
People don't read terms of service, they just click yes.
Have you ever read terms of service? The damn things are pages and pages of boring small print.
Even minutes before the splash-down Western authorities were saying that the Tiangong-1 spaceship was aiming for the Atlantic, off the coast of Brazil, at 00:49 GMT, or so
No. I was following this one, and most of the authorities were actually saying we don't know exactly where it will hit, here's the latest update and the best guess for impact, which was always a wide range.
At the very end they were saying "it will enter on this orbit, here's the ground track"-- and the final orbit's ground track passed over the South Atlantic, continued over South Africa, and went on to the Pacific. Where on that final orbit it would hit depended very sensitively on exaclty how it was oriented and how much drag and how early it would start to break apart, something difficult to predict for a relatively simple satellite and very very hard to estimate for something as complex as Taingong-1. Nobody was giving exact predictions "it will land here."
And, even beyond that, really most of the world that isn't ocean is uninhabited desert or scrubland or tundra.
Hitting a place that has people when you have an object hitting the Earth untargetted is actually quite unlikely.
Which one of these ladies is you?
Try one of the first few rows of images in this search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Chri...