Offense isn't always self-created. Often the very intent of the speaker is to offend. Cleese himself admits as much (re comedians). And lord knows there is a lot less benign intent-to-offend demonstrated on the internet every day (trolls, lulz). So let's dispense with the "self-created only" meme, m'kay?
No, they certainly did not enumerate them in any way. They could not physically have done so (with today's technology). Look at the magnitude of the number again.
At a government customer's site (semi-permanent assignment) on my first job, in the time between having given 2-weeks' notice and leaving. So yeah, bummer all around.
Error in the title. They most certainly did not calculate all legal positions, only the exact *number* of legal positions. Which is a *very* different thing.
Doesn't it just need also to be programmed to lie about it then? (And/or to "take the fifth"?) IOW, what kind of "legal intelligence" is also programmed in, if any? (I'm at least semi-serious here...)
And what if the email says literally what is reported there and nothing else: "The new file should include the same layout as the regular voter file but with the addition of the three new data fields." Is it "easy to verify" which of your two cases is the case? No, it's ambiguous. Onus where then?
Sorry, but that's a non-exculpatory "see no evil" rationale. Hint: the word you are looking for is "responsible" rather than "posted" or "distributed".
No, that's not the *only* mistake he made. He also did not follow up on what happened with an *uber-sensitive* data request for *10 days*. (Nor check up on the existing public file for which he was responsible for the same period.)
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake. There are NO geologists amongst the authors. Jackson is the only GEOGRAPHER amonst them.
Mark Carey is not "the geologist" amongst the authors. That would be "M Jackson". (Who names their child "M" anyway?)
Can't believe the final sentence of the abstract is not a giveaway: "thereby leading to more just and equitable ... human-ice interactions." Wha??
Offense isn't always self-created. Often the very intent of the speaker is to offend. Cleese himself admits as much (re comedians). And lord knows there is a lot less benign intent-to-offend demonstrated on the internet every day (trolls, lulz). So let's dispense with the "self-created only" meme, m'kay?
No, they certainly did not enumerate them in any way. They could not physically have done so (with today's technology). Look at the magnitude of the number again.
At a government customer's site (semi-permanent assignment) on my first job, in the time between having given 2-weeks' notice and leaving. So yeah, bummer all around.
I would describe it rather as failing to cope with tragedy. At least not appropriately.
Yes, but why are you still repeating them 30 years later? Disgusting really.
Martin Gardner, definitely. Hundreds of different types of things to choose from. I remember in particular: hexaflexagons, Game of Life (Conway's).
Error in the title. They most certainly did not calculate all legal positions, only the exact *number* of legal positions. Which is a *very* different thing.
Doesn't it just need also to be programmed to lie about it then? (And/or to "take the fifth"?) IOW, what kind of "legal intelligence" is also programmed in, if any? (I'm at least semi-serious here...)
And what if the email says literally what is reported there and nothing else: "The new file should include the same layout as the regular voter file but with the addition of the three new data fields." Is it "easy to verify" which of your two cases is the case? No, it's ambiguous. Onus where then?
Sorry, but that's a non-exculpatory "see no evil" rationale. Hint: the word you are looking for is "responsible" rather than "posted" or "distributed".
No, that's not the *only* mistake he made. He also did not follow up on what happened with an *uber-sensitive* data request for *10 days*. (Nor check up on the existing public file for which he was responsible for the same period.)