Seriously, dude. Go back and watch maybe five episodes of the show. That 2009 movie is absolutely nothing like the show -- in tone, in characterization, nothing. The movie is actually so intent on being stupid that it took the smartest characters in the Star Trek universe (the Vulcans) and blew up their entire planet so the sequels wouldn't have to worry about too many smart people hanging around. Brainless action movie, sure, it was that. But that ain't Star Trek.
The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. On the contrary, the teachings of the Lord are clear in regard to the way we must deal with sinners. Christ treated them with compassion -- as long as they confessed that their sin was a sin. Only when they attempted to pretend that their sin was righteousness did he harshly name them for what they were: fools, hypocrites, sinners.
Of course they should. What do you think the school system is for exactly?
No offense, I'm against this book ban and any other on a school wide scale, but parents should always have the last word on education (since they could after-all simply homeschool if they had the resources). There's no reason a public school system should have the right to dictate education without parental approval, unless you believe in something other than the freedoms America no longer stands for, of course.
So you agree that parents should be able to use the courts to prevent schools from teaching evolution? Because some people think that not "approving" of lies like evolution is one of the freedoms America stands for.
People were borrowing more money than they could afford to pay back. It's as simple as that. Nobody forced them to borrow more than they could afford. They were stupid.
They may have been stupid, but the people who were actively encouraging them to borrow more than they could afford deserve some of the blame. When you fill out the paperwork and a banker tells you, "this looks good, you qualify," there's often an implicit assumption that the banker knows more about his business than you do -- or at least that other people are doing the same thing as you, and successfully. A banker who keeps encouraging more and more people to do the same thing when he knows -- or should know -- that most of them will probably default under the terms they've been given is, in my opinion, negligent if not criminally culpable.
Google has practically moved away from Python because it has a shitty implementation and dynamic typing. I guess they're just idiots right?
Where are you hearing that? Maybe for consumer-facing applications, but tons of internal tooling at Google is still done in Python. Plus they don't pay Guido for nothing.
It takes some getting used to...but they'll get it eventually. Just keep the door closed.
I don't have a family, but the last time I looked for an apartment (in San Francisco, where everything is expensive) I made sure to look for one where at least the bedroom has a door, for pretty much the same reason. Then I don't keep anything that resembles a workspace in the bedroom. The idea being that once I'm up and at 'em, I've transitioned into "work mode."
There's another reason to keep one specific area of your home reserved as an office, too: Taxes. You can often write off that portion of your rent.
Well, that's kind of the whole point. Making manual text more consistent and easier to scan and parse makes the manual more readable, so it will be less daunting to newbies.
The MMoS also includes advice on how to style text in dialog boxes and online help to make them more legible and less frustrating to users.
The CMOS is also not necessarily the best resource for technical writing. I haven't used it as a bible since the 14th edition, but in those days the CMOS simply had no concept of bullet points in text, for example. Eschewing bullet points is good advice for lots of types of writing, but for an instructional text on a highly technical topic they can be quite handy. CMOS also tends to be behind the curve on matters of styling technical jargon for technical audiences (preferring "e-mail" to "email," for example). The CMOS is still a good general reference for professional English style, but a book like Microsoft's fills in the gaps for a specific subject area. Most technical publishers maintain a similar document internally, though it probably won't be as exhaustive as Microsoft's.
Very few workers are exempt from these rules. A programmer or IT person is most certainly not exempt!
In the United States, the rules have been twisted to the extent that pretty much anyone who works an annual salary, rather than an hourly wage, is exempt. Every so often someone will go to court to challenge that assumption -- and they might win -- but the assumption remains.
Anyone who pretends they don't understand what regimentism means is implying that because it doesn't fit his worldview, because it is not listed in some "standard" dictionary, that it can't exist. Isn't that its very definition?
Uhhhh... no, man, seriously. "Regimentism" isn't a word. It doesn't mean anything.
Anyone can make up words by following very loose arrangements that arise not from some standards body
Yeah, and we call those people kindergartners or the insane.
I believe the reason to be a lot of politicking in management and not enough actual IT experience.
I think one reason for this might be high barrier to entry. A lot of government jobs might require a security clearance (even a low one). That rules out some qualified people. And then, there's a little bit of the attitude that they want you to have "experience in the public sector." There's a similar attitude at many nonprofits, where they want you to have worked at/with other nonprofits before. There's nothing really wrong with this per se, but the effect is that it's public sector experience first, IT experience second.
I think Bank of America would show you a picture you'd previously chosen so you would know that you were on the real site (If they have my account ID, couldn't they get my picture after slowly loading while there system went and grabbed the real picture, maybe their was more to it?). Other than that, not much password security.
Actually, in addition to the picture thing you mention, I believe Bank of America offers a couple of different second-factor authentication methods. I don't remember all of the options, but I have my account set up so that certain types of transactions require me to enter a numeric code that BofA will SMS to my phone, in addition to my regular account password.
I'll go you one better. Whenever I sign up for an account on a Web site (Facebook, Myspace, Amazon, etc.) I use a unique email address.
That way, if someone steals my password (or they figure out my password-making "system"), they still can't use my password from one site to login to another, because they don't know what address it's under.
Equally important, if no two sites have you registered under the same email address, it makes it that much harder to use your account info from one database as a foreign key for another.
The XKCD's entrophy assumes an equal chance of any common word being used, not weighing the attack on begging with the most common words, thus its results are innaccurate. RTFA.
I don't think they are. In XKCD's example, the pass "phrase" was a list of seemingly random words with no connection to each other. It didn't try to be a sentence, where there were conjunctions between the words, which would be easy to guess. It didn't even try to be a complete thought that somebody might actually have -- the mnemonic came after the words.
And it doesn't matter if the words are "common" if the attacker can't put them in the right order. If your password is "stapler red plantain goober," it makes absolutely no difference that a lot of people use "red stapler" as a password.
It's not impossible to guess such a password. But it's impossible to brute-force such a password in a reasonable length of time. If you want to make it even harder, throw a comma in between a couple of the words, or capitalize one or two of them. Still easy to remember, virtually impervious to brute-force attacks. But keep in mind, brute force isn't the only way to hack passwords.
The last time I received any kind of IT training was when my company was in the process of switching from Quark to InDesign for publication layout. My role would involve checking articles in and out of the collaboration system and making a few minor text edits while they were in the system; nothing more. The "training" we were scheduled for involved something like four consecutive days of three-hour group training sessions. Needless to say, I said, "Thanks, I think I've got it..." and walked out during the first coffee break of the first session.
I suspect most corporate training is similarly asinine, so I'll ask: Where do these employees expect their companies to go to find training that isn't a total waste of time and money?
Yet my keyboard never seems to be covered with slime. Which makes some sense; I don't smear my fingers across my keyboard, I just tap. Maybe studies have shown there is a lot of bacteria on keyboards. I'll buy that. They just don't seem as gross.
Also, have you noticed how many office workers eat at their desks? Imagine using a touch UI while you eat a sandwich.
Find "print". The first time I used Office 2007. I asked the sysadmin where it was and he didn't know either.
Odd. It's under the File tab of the Ribbon, just like it was in the File menu in previous versions. It's the icon of the printer that says "Print" next to it.
This rule has always relied on falsified data, namely that the first Star Trek movie was no good, when in fact it was the only really good one. Star Trek II is a perfectly serviceable and enjoyable blockbuster type movie, and comes in second. The rest are pretty much crap.
Well, to be fair, most of the time I use my applications maximized. (I'm talking real-work applications, now, with menus, palettes, etc.) That's one of the things I always liked better about Windows than Mac OS X (though I understand Mac OS X can do something like Windows' maximize now). When I'm using something like a word processor or a Web browser, I'm really only doing one thing at a time. Why do I want a bunch of other windows hanging around, cluttering up my view?
On the other hand, if I'm cleaning up files in a directory while I run something in a terminal window, I'll use the desktop with a bunch of windows open on it. I guess I like having both options. With desktop computers being as powerful as they are, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do both.
The problem with Metro apps being full screen is not really that they take up the whole screen, it's that 90 percent of that real estate is wasted.
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, dude. Go back and watch maybe five episodes of the show. That 2009 movie is absolutely nothing like the show -- in tone, in characterization, nothing. The movie is actually so intent on being stupid that it took the smartest characters in the Star Trek universe (the Vulcans) and blew up their entire planet so the sequels wouldn't have to worry about too many smart people hanging around. Brainless action movie, sure, it was that. But that ain't Star Trek.
In my own case, the "portion" is something like 5 percent. Or less, I forget.
Orson Scott Card on how homophobic Orson Scott Card is:
The hypocrites of homosexuality are, of course, already preparing to answer these statements by accusing me of homophobia, gay-bashing, bigotry, intolerance; but nothing that I have said here -- and nothing that has been said by any of the prophets or any of the Church leaders who have dealt with this issue -- can be construed as advocating, encouraging, or even allowing harsh personal treatment of individuals who are unable to resist the temptation to have sexual relations with persons of the same sex. On the contrary, the teachings of the Lord are clear in regard to the way we must deal with sinners. Christ treated them with compassion -- as long as they confessed that their sin was a sin. Only when they attempted to pretend that their sin was righteousness did he harshly name them for what they were: fools, hypocrites, sinners.
Oh, so that clears that up, then. He's not.
Of course they should. What do you think the school system is for exactly?
No offense, I'm against this book ban and any other on a school wide scale, but parents should always have the last word on education (since they could after-all simply homeschool if they had the resources). There's no reason a public school system should have the right to dictate education without parental approval, unless you believe in something other than the freedoms America no longer stands for, of course.
So you agree that parents should be able to use the courts to prevent schools from teaching evolution? Because some people think that not "approving" of lies like evolution is one of the freedoms America stands for.
People were borrowing more money than they could afford to pay back. It's as simple as that. Nobody forced them to borrow more than they could afford. They were stupid.
They may have been stupid, but the people who were actively encouraging them to borrow more than they could afford deserve some of the blame. When you fill out the paperwork and a banker tells you, "this looks good, you qualify," there's often an implicit assumption that the banker knows more about his business than you do -- or at least that other people are doing the same thing as you, and successfully. A banker who keeps encouraging more and more people to do the same thing when he knows -- or should know -- that most of them will probably default under the terms they've been given is, in my opinion, negligent if not criminally culpable.
Google has practically moved away from Python because it has a shitty implementation and dynamic typing. I guess they're just idiots right?
Where are you hearing that? Maybe for consumer-facing applications, but tons of internal tooling at Google is still done in Python. Plus they don't pay Guido for nothing.
It takes some getting used to...but they'll get it eventually. Just keep the door closed.
I don't have a family, but the last time I looked for an apartment (in San Francisco, where everything is expensive) I made sure to look for one where at least the bedroom has a door, for pretty much the same reason. Then I don't keep anything that resembles a workspace in the bedroom. The idea being that once I'm up and at 'em, I've transitioned into "work mode."
There's another reason to keep one specific area of your home reserved as an office, too: Taxes. You can often write off that portion of your rent.
This is also only true for many American writers. Many others prefer the Associated Press Stylebook. The two differ on various points.
Well, that's kind of the whole point. Making manual text more consistent and easier to scan and parse makes the manual more readable, so it will be less daunting to newbies.
The MMoS also includes advice on how to style text in dialog boxes and online help to make them more legible and less frustrating to users.
The CMOS is also not necessarily the best resource for technical writing. I haven't used it as a bible since the 14th edition, but in those days the CMOS simply had no concept of bullet points in text, for example. Eschewing bullet points is good advice for lots of types of writing, but for an instructional text on a highly technical topic they can be quite handy. CMOS also tends to be behind the curve on matters of styling technical jargon for technical audiences (preferring "e-mail" to "email," for example). The CMOS is still a good general reference for professional English style, but a book like Microsoft's fills in the gaps for a specific subject area. Most technical publishers maintain a similar document internally, though it probably won't be as exhaustive as Microsoft's.
Very few workers are exempt from these rules. A programmer or IT person is most certainly not exempt!
In the United States, the rules have been twisted to the extent that pretty much anyone who works an annual salary, rather than an hourly wage, is exempt. Every so often someone will go to court to challenge that assumption -- and they might win -- but the assumption remains.
Anyone who pretends they don't understand what regimentism means is implying that because it doesn't fit his worldview, because it is not listed in some "standard" dictionary, that it can't exist. Isn't that its very definition?
Uhhhh... no, man, seriously. "Regimentism" isn't a word. It doesn't mean anything.
Anyone can make up words by following very loose arrangements that arise not from some standards body
Yeah, and we call those people kindergartners or the insane.
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water ... JAWLESS!
I believe the reason to be a lot of politicking in management and not enough actual IT experience.
I think one reason for this might be high barrier to entry. A lot of government jobs might require a security clearance (even a low one). That rules out some qualified people. And then, there's a little bit of the attitude that they want you to have "experience in the public sector." There's a similar attitude at many nonprofits, where they want you to have worked at/with other nonprofits before. There's nothing really wrong with this per se, but the effect is that it's public sector experience first, IT experience second.
I think Bank of America would show you a picture you'd previously chosen so you would know that you were on the real site (If they have my account ID, couldn't they get my picture after slowly loading while there system went and grabbed the real picture, maybe their was more to it?). Other than that, not much password security.
Actually, in addition to the picture thing you mention, I believe Bank of America offers a couple of different second-factor authentication methods. I don't remember all of the options, but I have my account set up so that certain types of transactions require me to enter a numeric code that BofA will SMS to my phone, in addition to my regular account password.
When I was a small child, I had a book called 'My First Thousand Words in Pictures.' It only contained concrete nouns
I hear Eskimos have a lot of different words for snow. What language has a thousand different words for concrete? (ducks)
I'll go you one better. Whenever I sign up for an account on a Web site (Facebook, Myspace, Amazon, etc.) I use a unique email address.
That way, if someone steals my password (or they figure out my password-making "system"), they still can't use my password from one site to login to another, because they don't know what address it's under.
Equally important, if no two sites have you registered under the same email address, it makes it that much harder to use your account info from one database as a foreign key for another.
The XKCD's entrophy assumes an equal chance of any common word being used, not weighing the attack on begging with the most common words, thus its results are innaccurate. RTFA.
I don't think they are. In XKCD's example, the pass "phrase" was a list of seemingly random words with no connection to each other. It didn't try to be a sentence, where there were conjunctions between the words, which would be easy to guess. It didn't even try to be a complete thought that somebody might actually have -- the mnemonic came after the words.
And it doesn't matter if the words are "common" if the attacker can't put them in the right order. If your password is "stapler red plantain goober," it makes absolutely no difference that a lot of people use "red stapler" as a password.
It's not impossible to guess such a password. But it's impossible to brute-force such a password in a reasonable length of time. If you want to make it even harder, throw a comma in between a couple of the words, or capitalize one or two of them. Still easy to remember, virtually impervious to brute-force attacks. But keep in mind, brute force isn't the only way to hack passwords.
The last time I received any kind of IT training was when my company was in the process of switching from Quark to InDesign for publication layout. My role would involve checking articles in and out of the collaboration system and making a few minor text edits while they were in the system; nothing more. The "training" we were scheduled for involved something like four consecutive days of three-hour group training sessions. Needless to say, I said, "Thanks, I think I've got it..." and walked out during the first coffee break of the first session.
I suspect most corporate training is similarly asinine, so I'll ask: Where do these employees expect their companies to go to find training that isn't a total waste of time and money?
Beyond Zork was an RPG. That was '87.
Yet my keyboard never seems to be covered with slime. Which makes some sense; I don't smear my fingers across my keyboard, I just tap. Maybe studies have shown there is a lot of bacteria on keyboards. I'll buy that. They just don't seem as gross.
Also, have you noticed how many office workers eat at their desks? Imagine using a touch UI while you eat a sandwich.
When you say something like that, you should mention which language you mean. I'm thinking French?
Find "print". The first time I used Office 2007. I asked the sysadmin where it was and he didn't know either.
Odd. It's under the File tab of the Ribbon, just like it was in the File menu in previous versions. It's the icon of the printer that says "Print" next to it.
This rule has always relied on falsified data, namely that the first Star Trek movie was no good, when in fact it was the only really good one. Star Trek II is a perfectly serviceable and enjoyable blockbuster type movie, and comes in second. The rest are pretty much crap.
Well, to be fair, most of the time I use my applications maximized. (I'm talking real-work applications, now, with menus, palettes, etc.) That's one of the things I always liked better about Windows than Mac OS X (though I understand Mac OS X can do something like Windows' maximize now). When I'm using something like a word processor or a Web browser, I'm really only doing one thing at a time. Why do I want a bunch of other windows hanging around, cluttering up my view?
On the other hand, if I'm cleaning up files in a directory while I run something in a terminal window, I'll use the desktop with a bunch of windows open on it. I guess I like having both options. With desktop computers being as powerful as they are, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to do both.
The problem with Metro apps being full screen is not really that they take up the whole screen, it's that 90 percent of that real estate is wasted.