Is Emily Short really famous? I knew of her but only because I follow Interactive Fiction.
And I'm sorry, just because Roberta Williams was part of a husband and wife team doesn't mean she counts as half a person. If you were counting _projects_ that might be valid, but then you'd have to divide all the other programmer's projects up too.
There's already a hardly any "computer science" related jobs out there, even in academia. Sure, there's business programming out in the corporate world, but those wages would also decrease
I don't think that's true unless you restrict "computer science related" to pure research type stuff. A lot of programming jobs require computer science.
This is drivel - it assumes that a static binary analysis can be used to predict the dynamic behavior of a non-trivial application, with zero false positives.
Which is why I tagged this with "haltingproblem". If it's impossible to write a terminating program which simply determines whether or not another program terminates, just how likely is it that a program can correctly predict far more complex behavior of another program? Since the halting problem is noncomputabe, we know it can't do it with 100% reliability, the question is: "how error prone is it?"
Technical skills are still important, but businesses also want to hire students with management and industry training, strong communications abilities, marketing and negotiation skills
Yeah, and businesses also want people with 10+ years J2EE experience. What they want isn't necessarily what they can get. And if you have ALL of the above, technical skills, marketing skills, negotiation skills, and management and industry training, the only positions you should be considering are CEO and CTO. With those negotiation skills, you should get them.
Why does asking this question on/. seem a lot like walking into a biker bar wearing a feather boa and asking for a virgin Tom Collins?
Son, you might be in the wrong bar...
Considering who has the power in the world, it's more like the other way around -- a biker in full leathers walking into a foofy juice bar asking for a straight Jack Daniels. He still ain't going to get it, but it isn't him in physical danger.
Anyway, if you're a startup, you'd better not make it all equity; your employees know there's a good chance that equity ain't worth squat. All cash or cash plus equity.
You know nothing about cars. In any modern car there is not such thing as a "tune up". There's nothing to do. That is an artifact of when we had cars that had something to actually tune up. Go to a mechanic now and ask for a tune up and he'll look at you like you have 5 heads.
There's typically nothing to adjust, but there's still plenty to do. Replace the spark plugs (possibly the wires as well). Replace the air filter and fuel filters. Yes, clean the injectors (by disconnecting the rail from the fuel tank and attaching what amounts to a can of pressurized xylene with just enough gas to keep the engine running). Sometimes clean the throttle body.
This bill doesn't necessarily affect the legality of what they are doing, it stiffens the penalties.
And reduces the burden of proof. Civil forfeiture means that if your IP is on an RIAA list, they get to take all your computers, in a lawsuit which names the computers. No rights for you.
Microsoft redefined "release" to be what we previously called "beta", a long time ago. That's why "Google's 'beta' products like Gmail and Google Docs are about as good as anyone would expect" -- we've been brought to expect software and services which are barely tested. Google is returning to the old meaning and perhaps going a bit further.
Exactly. Code's often dirty because the problem is dirty. Either it's a collection of special cases which can't be generalized further, or there's a lot of error conditions causing the same effect.
"Please do not continue to post these threads or you account may be at risk of banning, which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
Nice. Shut up or we'll unilaterally take away the game that you bought. Captures the essence of DRM quite well.
Lots of companies seem to think that trademark is a blanket rule to prevent others from talking about you (consider that the NFL thinks you can't mention team names without their permission!). It doesn't help that there's the occasional idiot judge who upholds that kind of thing.
The letter consisted of threatening to sue me, file CRIMINAL charges against me, and restraining orders. It also bordered on libel, as it stated for a fact that owning these domains was libelous and slanderous, without any court of law coming to that finding. The company who hired the, in my opinion, unethical attorney to send this letter was Caton Commercial
They can't libel you by communicating privately with you. But isn't threatening criminal prosecution to get their way in a civil matter bordering on blackmail?
The article cites Wikipedia in claiming that the Sad Mac dates from 1987, not 1984. Nope; it's 1984. Just hit the interrupt button on the programmer's switch and you got a sad mac (000F 000D, if I remember correctly -- 2 groups of 4 hex digits for the 68000-based machines). Of course, that's from personal experience so Wikipedia: No Original Research means I can't correct the erroneous Wikipedia page. And then some idiot bot is wanting to remove the "bomb" image from the wiki article because of copyright issues....
Someone else removed the 1987 date, but the 1984 date still isn't there.
For webcasters, the bad news is the RIAA is taking 10.5% of their revenue. The good news is that they've got the MPAA's accountants to do their books...
Sorry, I have to disable it when it comes to patents, because so many people (most of them, oddly, patent examiners and patent lawyers) seem to believe such absurd things.
And assuming that the entirety of patents would contain all "steps" that have been made that can be patented, a step that has not yet been patented would be non-obvious, right?
No. Merely novel. There's three requirements for patentability. Usefulness, novelty, and non-obviousness. If a "step" hasn't been done before, it's novel. But it may not be non-obvious. The step of doing "X" on the internet, when "X" has already been done somewhere else, comes immediately to mind. Or, the step of doing "X" on a "portable multimedia player", when "X" has already been done on a regular computer.
If the attackers did NOT know it was a dry run, then they must also carry attack devices with them through the screening process, and be at risk of detection of the devices or by an observant screener or secondary screening.
It takes a little work to arrange a good test, but not that much. Perhaps the attackers pick up the bags containing the "devices" from someone else shortly before going through screening, and are told not to open them until aboard the plane. If it's a dry run, the bags contain nothing suspicious, but the attackers don't know that.
The statute forces businesses to encrypt "Personal Information", which by law consists ONLY of the following
NRS 603A.040 "Personal information" defined. "Personal information" means a natural person's first name or first initial and last name in combination with any one or more of the following data elements, when the name and data elements are not encrypted:
1. Social security number.
2. Driver's license number or identification card number.
3. Account number, credit card number or debit card number, in combination with any required security code, access code or password that would permit access to the person's financial account.
Ê The term does not include the last four digits of a social security number or publicly available information that is lawfully made available to the general public.
(Added to NRS by 2005, 2504; A 2005, 22nd Special Session, 109; 2007, 1314)
So businesses merely need to refrain from putting social security numbers, drivers license numbers, and passwords in email and other insecure communication channels and they're good. They can even send the password, provided they don't send the account number along with it.
This makes forgotten password recovery a bit harder, but it's not impossible to comply with.
Since when did the First Amendment stop becoming the legal means to respect everyone's common rights to free expression within reasonable common-sense limits, and instead become a legal weapon to destroy our long-established institutions?
If the student had been hit with a libel suit, how many of those same people bitching about the suspension would be making statements like "OMG, what an overreaction, why not just suspend the kid of something. OMG. OMFG. How gestapo is that.What a waste of court time, etc etc"
Does it matter? That you hypothesize that some people are hypocrites doesn't change the validity of their position (or positions).
As it happens, I'd probably be bitching that the libel suit was unjustified because the so-called defamatory statements were not intended to be taken seriously and could not have been taken seriously by any reasonable person. This wasn't a student page saying the principal hit on the students. It was a page allegedly put up by the principal saying that the principal's "interests" include "hitting on students and their parents.", and a bunch of similar over the top stuff.
Putting comments out on the web, whether on a blog or social site or a standalone web site, as far as I am concerned, is no different than uttering the words in person.
And that is because you are a blithering idiot.
What point does this kind of disrespectful behaior have, other than to disrupt the educational process?
Free speech needs no point. It includes the freedom to be disrespectful.
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from consequence -- at least, official governmental consequence. If it didn't, it would be meaningless. The government could pass a law saying "Anyone criticizing a member of Congress, Senator, President, or Vice President shall be executed", and it wouldn't violate "free speech" as you've defined it.
This isn't satire, this isn't parody, this is just abusive stuff out of the mind of a teenager
It doesn't matter; if a teenager libels the principal outside the school, the principal's legitimate response would be a libel suit. NOT to take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner himself. That's corruption on the principal's part, using his official power to address a personal wrong.
The basic error made by the judge seems to be that because the speech was _about_ the school, it is under the school's jurisdiction. That's his "connection between the off-campus action and on-campus effect." And the Supreme Court opened up the door to this sort of specious reasoning in "Morse v. Frederick", where they ruled that a banner visible from the school (but not on school property) was considered to be under school jurisdiction. The Supreme Court didn't rely on that fact alone, but it's enough for a judge who makes the decision first and justifies it later to hang an opinion on.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Emily Short really famous? I knew of her but only because I follow Interactive Fiction.
And I'm sorry, just because Roberta Williams was part of a husband and wife team doesn't mean she counts as half a person. If you were counting _projects_ that might be valid, but then you'd have to divide all the other programmer's projects up too.
I don't think that's true unless you restrict "computer science related" to pure research type stuff. A lot of programming jobs require computer science.
This is drivel - it assumes that a static binary analysis can be used to predict the dynamic behavior of a non-trivial application, with zero false positives.
Which is why I tagged this with "haltingproblem". If it's impossible to write a terminating program which simply determines whether or not another program terminates, just how likely is it that a program can correctly predict far more complex behavior of another program? Since the halting problem is noncomputabe, we know it can't do it with 100% reliability, the question is: "how error prone is it?"
From the article:
Yeah, and businesses also want people with 10+ years J2EE experience. What they want isn't necessarily what they can get. And if you have ALL of the above, technical skills, marketing skills, negotiation skills, and management and industry training, the only positions you should be considering are CEO and CTO. With those negotiation skills, you should get them.
Considering who has the power in the world, it's more like the other way around -- a biker in full leathers walking into a foofy juice bar asking for a straight Jack Daniels. He still ain't going to get it, but it isn't him in physical danger.
Anyway, if you're a startup, you'd better not make it all equity; your employees know there's a good chance that equity ain't worth squat. All cash or cash plus equity.
There's typically nothing to adjust, but there's still plenty to do. Replace the spark plugs (possibly the wires as well). Replace the air filter and fuel filters. Yes, clean the injectors (by disconnecting the rail from the fuel tank and attaching what amounts to a can of pressurized xylene with just enough gas to keep the engine running). Sometimes clean the throttle body.
And reduces the burden of proof. Civil forfeiture means that if your IP is on an RIAA list, they get to take all your computers, in a lawsuit which names the computers. No rights for you.
Microsoft redefined "release" to be what we previously called "beta", a long time ago. That's why "Google's 'beta' products like Gmail and Google Docs are about as good as anyone would expect" -- we've been brought to expect software and services which are barely tested. Google is returning to the old meaning and perhaps going a bit further.
Exactly. Code's often dirty because the problem is dirty. Either it's a collection of special cases which can't be generalized further, or there's a lot of error conditions causing the same effect.
"Please do not continue to post these threads or you account may be at risk of banning, which in some cases would mean you would need to buy a new copy to play Spore."
Nice. Shut up or we'll unilaterally take away the game that you bought. Captures the essence of DRM quite well.
Lots of companies seem to think that trademark is a blanket rule to prevent others from talking about you (consider that the NFL thinks you can't mention team names without their permission!). It doesn't help that there's the occasional idiot judge who upholds that kind of thing.
They can't libel you by communicating privately with you. But isn't threatening criminal prosecution to get their way in a civil matter bordering on blackmail?
The article cites Wikipedia in claiming that the Sad Mac dates from 1987, not 1984. Nope; it's 1984. Just hit the interrupt button on the programmer's switch and you got a sad mac (000F 000D, if I remember correctly -- 2 groups of 4 hex digits for the 68000-based machines). Of course, that's from personal experience so Wikipedia: No Original Research means I can't correct the erroneous Wikipedia page. And then some idiot bot is wanting to remove the "bomb" image from the wiki article because of copyright issues....
Someone else removed the 1987 date, but the 1984 date still isn't there.
For webcasters, the bad news is the RIAA is taking 10.5% of their revenue. The good news is that they've got the MPAA's accountants to do their books...
Sorry, I have to disable it when it comes to patents, because so many people (most of them, oddly, patent examiners and patent lawyers) seem to believe such absurd things.
No. Merely novel. There's three requirements for patentability. Usefulness, novelty, and non-obviousness. If a "step" hasn't been done before, it's novel. But it may not be non-obvious. The step of doing "X" on the internet, when "X" has already been done somewhere else, comes immediately to mind. Or, the step of doing "X" on a "portable multimedia player", when "X" has already been done on a regular computer.
It takes a little work to arrange a good test, but not that much. Perhaps the attackers pick up the bags containing the "devices" from someone else shortly before going through screening, and are told not to open them until aboard the plane. If it's a dry run, the bags contain nothing suspicious, but the attackers don't know that.
Teenaged GRIZZLY BEARS.
So businesses merely need to refrain from putting social security numbers, drivers license numbers, and passwords in email and other insecure communication channels and they're good. They can even send the password, provided they don't send the account number along with it. This makes forgotten password recovery a bit harder, but it's not impossible to comply with.
Day One.
Does it matter? That you hypothesize that some people are hypocrites doesn't change the validity of their position (or positions).
As it happens, I'd probably be bitching that the libel suit was unjustified because the so-called defamatory statements were not intended to be taken seriously and could not have been taken seriously by any reasonable person. This wasn't a student page saying the principal hit on the students. It was a page allegedly put up by the principal saying that the principal's "interests" include "hitting on students and their parents.", and a bunch of similar over the top stuff.
And that is because you are a blithering idiot.
Free speech needs no point. It includes the freedom to be disrespectful.
Of course freedom of speech means freedom from consequence -- at least, official governmental consequence. If it didn't, it would be meaningless. The government could pass a law saying "Anyone criticizing a member of Congress, Senator, President, or Vice President shall be executed", and it wouldn't violate "free speech" as you've defined it.
It doesn't matter; if a teenager libels the principal outside the school, the principal's legitimate response would be a libel suit. NOT to take on the role of judge, jury, and executioner himself. That's corruption on the principal's part, using his official power to address a personal wrong.
The basic error made by the judge seems to be that because the speech was _about_ the school, it is under the school's jurisdiction. That's his "connection between the off-campus action and on-campus effect." And the Supreme Court opened up the door to this sort of specious reasoning in "Morse v. Frederick", where they ruled that a banner visible from the school (but not on school property) was considered to be under school jurisdiction. The Supreme Court didn't rely on that fact alone, but it's enough for a judge who makes the decision first and justifies it later to hang an opinion on.