Tey're already pondering more high-tech stuff, but what about optometry?
My own glasses are that Flexon stuff that you can practically tie in knots, but it doesn't hold original shape *too* well and will break after doing it a few hundred times. Now imagine glasses frames that are made of this stuff.
You are not marketing. You did not go to school to be in marketing. Therefore, according to Marketing, you don't know shite from shinola. It doesn't matter if you have a doctorate, have coded C for 20 years, scored 300 on a standard IQ test, taught yourself Perl, MySQL, PHP, HTML, ASP, Java, and C, or cut your teeth on a PDP-10, you are an imbecile because you can't (or won't) sell.
Therefore, you have to bite back if you want this to be done. My suggestion is to build the applet, install it, let it run for a few weeks, and demonstrate the results at the next meeting. If you can prove you can do it for less money, you can look favorable to the higher ups. Marketing will still look at you, the puny code geek, through their noses, but you will also have the satisfaction of beating them.
Consider the 46000 complaint question
on
FTC vs Spammers
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Figuring that I send a copy of every spam I receive to the FTC through the address uce@ftc.gov (averaging about 25 per week these days), and assuming that this person is responsible for sending maybe one of those per week, consider that they've received a few from me.
Now consider that at that ratio, you would basically need 11,500 of me to do this per week for four weeks. Seeing as it's more likely that the UCE addr4esws provided is not well known, it's more likely that it took a couple of months to amass that many spam complaints regarding this.
Sorry, Oliver, the Postal Service denies the existance of a Stoneville CA at that zip code.
In fact, searching zip code 92504 for cities using this tool they provide reveals the following data for zip 92504:
92504 is associated with the following Cities/Towns:
RIVERSIDE CA ACCEPTABLE (DEFAULT) STANDARD
CASA BLANCA CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
HARDMAN CENTER CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
WOODCREST CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
Furthermore, 916 area code is for the Sacramento area - about 8 hours north of Riverside CA, which is about 1 hour east of Los Angeles and uses A/C 909.
QED, whois info is not always the most reliable. Next, please.
Rehabilitation is pointless when it is repeatedly demonstrated that the party can't be trusted.
I am reminded of a recent incident on Tapestries, a MU*, where a user had DDOS'ed the equipment and then had the chutzpah to apologize and offer his services as a security person on the system. They promptly @toaded him. He wasn't trusted to begin with.
While it's true that those who crack security theoretically know it, I wouldn't trust one of those types farther than I can throw a stone. It's not worth the liability, even if they *do* know what they're doing - it's like putting Alan Ralsky on an anti-spam campaign.
Yes, I know, RMS already wrote the code, but I am now the holder of the patent on EMACS, a full featured text editing program with a fully-functional LISP facility and a kitchen sink on the side.
Yes, it's not *totally* necessary per my other post, but not filing is a Very Bad Idea. If you really made absolutely nothing doing business or paid nothing doing business, you're left with nothing naturally. It's like that song that Eric Idle sang at the end of Life Of Brian. Nonetheless, send in that Sched C, and do the long form. It's just a good idea.
I am not a lawyer, accountant, or anything like that, but I work as a case manager for a tax help firm that, for the purpose, shall remain anonymous. We handle clients who need defense against tax levies and garnishments, and prepare offers in compromise for them. (See IRS form 656 if you don't know what this is.)
In short, that you don't have to file if you made no money is technically correct, but complete bullsh*t at the same time.
In long, if you do not file, the IRS and (where applicable) your local tax agencies will make gratuitous assumptions and file for you. Filing a zero return (you send a 1040/940/941/1120/insert form here that says to all intents "I made nothing"), while it is technically not required, is the Right Thing if you want to keep out of trouble with the IRS and company. That, and if you're in the midst of an offer in compromise orr a payment arrangement with them, if you don't file even a zero return, you will find your offer or PA rejected or defaulted.
To wit, though, if you had ANY REVENUE FLOW WHATSOEVER, whether or not it balances out to zero in the end, file. No, do it. Fill out the bloody forms and send them in. Not filing is spectacularly stupid and will get you into serious trouble, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably not an accountant.
Speaking personally and based on one source (my current work address), so far we've received no junk snail mail pertaining to our domains we registered on Dotster last year sometime. Of course, we don't actually *use* the domains, we just registered them. The owner of the company thinks that by doing this alone we have a web presence.
Has the media forgotten a little singsong lesson as demonstrated in the Willy Wonka movie:
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You ought to know just who's to blame
The mother and the father
(Point of reference: this is when Veruca Salt and her father found exactly where the bad eggs went when they were disposed of out of the manufacturing facility. I have not read the book, but knowing what I do of the author it's fairly close.)
When are people going to remember that it's up to parents and not video games, or the TV, or the 'net, or (insert favorite automaton here), or clergy, or anything but the parents of those they bore to raise kids?!
OK, as off topic as this may seem, let's consider the formation of networking standards on the 'net. TCP/IP was adopted at large by the internet because it was an openly developed standard, and therefore as far as I can tell it worked. It still works to this day, IPv6 notwithstanding, and was favored as such over things like DECnet and the ISO 7-layer.
The point? It wasn't developed by corporations.
(Yes, on the other side, you had the Hayes standard for modems, but that was a survival tactic.)
If anything resembling trusted computing is going to be adopted by the computer community at large, it can't be developed by corporations. Either it won't be adopted or people will undermine corporations and take them out of the running in favor of a more open and malleable standard.
The Christian Science Monitor is not mainstream press. That one is to Christian Science (not Christianity) what Watchtower is to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Sir Arthur Clarke's solution as demonstrated in 2001 and 2010 seems to be viable though - put a sort of centrifugal gravity generator into the ship in a common area.
Yes, they need to link you to a solid address for fraud reasons (and to prevent ID theft), so if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right?
Slashdot Mirror
My own glasses are that Flexon stuff that you can practically tie in knots, but it doesn't hold original shape *too* well and will break after doing it a few hundred times. Now imagine glasses frames that are made of this stuff.
You know, if you don't like slashdot anymore, why not leave?
Therefore, you have to bite back if you want this to be done. My suggestion is to build the applet, install it, let it run for a few weeks, and demonstrate the results at the next meeting. If you can prove you can do it for less money, you can look favorable to the higher ups. Marketing will still look at you, the puny code geek, through their noses, but you will also have the satisfaction of beating them.
Why DDOS them? Just issue IDP and completely ignore all traffic from them at the router level.
Wasn't this up for April Fools' Day?
Now consider that at that ratio, you would basically need 11,500 of me to do this per week for four weeks. Seeing as it's more likely that the UCE addr4esws provided is not well known, it's more likely that it took a couple of months to amass that many spam complaints regarding this.
In fact, searching zip code 92504 for cities using this tool they provide reveals the following data for zip 92504:
92504 is associated with the following Cities/Towns:
RIVERSIDE CA ACCEPTABLE (DEFAULT) STANDARD
CASA BLANCA CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
HARDMAN CENTER CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
WOODCREST CA NOT ACCEPTABLE - USE RIVERSIDE STANDARD
Furthermore, 916 area code is for the Sacramento area - about 8 hours north of Riverside CA, which is about 1 hour east of Los Angeles and uses A/C 909.
QED, whois info is not always the most reliable. Next, please.
I am reminded of a recent incident on Tapestries, a MU*, where a user had DDOS'ed the equipment and then had the chutzpah to apologize and offer his services as a security person on the system. They promptly @toaded him. He wasn't trusted to begin with.
While it's true that those who crack security theoretically know it, I wouldn't trust one of those types farther than I can throw a stone. It's not worth the liability, even if they *do* know what they're doing - it's like putting Alan Ralsky on an anti-spam campaign.
It sounds ot me like some PHB's at Novell got their hands on some ten year old documents on Linux.
Why, you could change the channel on all the TV's in the house at the same time while browsing the internet and checking your mail!
Yes, I know, RMS already wrote the code, but I am now the holder of the patent on EMACS, a full featured text editing program with a fully-functional LISP facility and a kitchen sink on the side.
Yes, it's not *totally* necessary per my other post, but not filing is a Very Bad Idea. If you really made absolutely nothing doing business or paid nothing doing business, you're left with nothing naturally. It's like that song that Eric Idle sang at the end of Life Of Brian. Nonetheless, send in that Sched C, and do the long form. It's just a good idea.
In short, that you don't have to file if you made no money is technically correct, but complete bullsh*t at the same time.
In long, if you do not file, the IRS and (where applicable) your local tax agencies will make gratuitous assumptions and file for you. Filing a zero return (you send a 1040/940/941/1120/insert form here that says to all intents "I made nothing"), while it is technically not required, is the Right Thing if you want to keep out of trouble with the IRS and company. That, and if you're in the midst of an offer in compromise orr a payment arrangement with them, if you don't file even a zero return, you will find your offer or PA rejected or defaulted.
To wit, though, if you had ANY REVENUE FLOW WHATSOEVER, whether or not it balances out to zero in the end, file. No, do it. Fill out the bloody forms and send them in. Not filing is spectacularly stupid and will get you into serious trouble, and anyone who tells you otherwise is probably not an accountant.
Considering the nature of the security flaws and that they are now exposed, can this legal action against Virgil be challenged under SLAPP clauses?
No, sir, it stands for "It still does nothing".
Speaking personally and based on one source (my current work address), so far we've received no junk snail mail pertaining to our domains we registered on Dotster last year sometime. Of course, we don't actually *use* the domains, we just registered them. The owner of the company thinks that by doing this alone we have a web presence.
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You ought to know just who's to blame
The mother and the father
(Point of reference: this is when Veruca Salt and her father found exactly where the bad eggs went when they were disposed of out of the manufacturing facility. I have not read the book, but knowing what I do of the author it's fairly close.)
When are people going to remember that it's up to parents and not video games, or the TV, or the 'net, or (insert favorite automaton here), or clergy, or anything but the parents of those they bore to raise kids?!
The point? It wasn't developed by corporations.
(Yes, on the other side, you had the Hayes standard for modems, but that was a survival tactic.)
If anything resembling trusted computing is going to be adopted by the computer community at large, it can't be developed by corporations. Either it won't be adopted or people will undermine corporations and take them out of the running in favor of a more open and malleable standard.
The Christian Science Monitor is not mainstream press. That one is to Christian Science (not Christianity) what Watchtower is to the Jehovah's Witnesses.
Pray, could I enlist characters out of my wife's copy of The Sims?
Sir Arthur Clarke's solution as demonstrated in 2001 and 2010 seems to be viable though - put a sort of centrifugal gravity generator into the ship in a common area.
People, why aren't we mirroring sites on other high-profile facilities with no bandwidth caps or problems?
Considering that the jury is apparently still out on aluminum contributing or causing alzheimer's disease, this is an interesting concept.
I'm sorry, what site were we posting to again? And what's a commander taco?
Yes, they need to link you to a solid address for fraud reasons (and to prevent ID theft), so if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right?
But now this ventures to topic drift.