There's a finer distinction at play (which I think you might already have noticed, but are not commenting on):
Currently female users receive X undesirable messages and Y desirable messages, with X much much larger than Y.
Removing photos on a conventional dating site drops both X and Y to near-zero.
The goal is to drop X to zero, while keeping Y as near as possible to the current value.
It is theorised that this is an impossible goal as long as men are doing the messaging, because the creeps will always out-message the sensible guys.... BUT... this app doesn't attempt to do that. It does what you're suggesting - drop the incoming message numbers for the women to zero, and force them to take the action. The men don't/can't message the women at all. The men have to prove their worthiness by providing suitable pictures and answering daily questions in an interesting manner. The women can then make the first contact.
I've been using StartSSL for years, for a number of certificates - all they verify for the free cert is that I can click on a link sent to the postmaster address for the relevant domain...
If you want anything other than basic class-1 certificates for a single hostname there's a cost, and a more involved process; but that process is similar regardless of who does your identity verification.
If you want free class-1 certificates, there is no additional cost, and no super-secret documentation to send around.
I have no experience with StartCom's organisation verification process. However, for domain-verified class-1 certificates for individual hosts, they offer a free, immediate, trouble-free process which involves no more than clicking a link in my email.
... most viruses require a constant high speed connection...
You must be new here - I'm young in internet years, but even I remember the number of viruses flying around in the days of floppy disks and dial-up modems, long before constant high speed connections...
Or simply temporarily leaving them behind? I'd leave my phone on the desk in my office if I was going to meet a contact I didn't want associated with me...
Yep, I see it more like the razor/blade "loss-leader" model, or the "first one's free to get you hooked" free-samples model, rather than the "freemium" model...
Postgresql runs a database server. That's it. Postgresql doesn't include a mailserver just because it needs to send alerts.
Apache runs an HTTP server. That's it. Apache doesn't include DNS and OCSP servers just because sites hosted on it will need name resolution and certificates.
OpenOffice, I'll give you that one. It combines multiple applications into one for historical reasons. I don't like it, but I don't use it so I don't have a dog in that fight.
Monolithic (in the sense used here) implies the combination of multiple essentially independent functions into a single application. Just because Apache and Postgresql are big applications doesn't make them monolithic.
I can see them doing this, rather than the much simpler solution of having two ports: a Micro-B port for charging only, and a C port for data/charging.
Compliant with all regulations, simpler for the consumer (no adapter required), minimal outlay (one extra trace on the PCB, one extra component costing fractions of a cent), no questions about cables.
Or the fragment might be part of a statement like "following the issues with the Enron case, we've put in some additional measures to prevent any irregularities in the pension fund" or even "Did you see that episode of the IT Crowd where the new boss was asking the IT department for help deleting the files which showed the irregularities in the pension fund? What a classic..."
We shouldn't. They fucked up. We should call them out for fucking up.
What the GP said was not "we should commend them", but "in their defense".
It's a valid defense: they fucked up, they noticed, they cleaned up what they could, and they admitted their mistake and advised people appropriately. That doesn't make their mistake go away, but it changes it from Badness Level 50 (eBay) to Badness Level 30 (Target).
Ditto, from my WinMob-based Dopod 838pro which I had from 2006 to 2010, vs every touchscreen phone I've owned since then. I send fewer and shorter emails from the phone nowadays, and even my sms messages have gotten shorter (from comfortably typing ~8 unit/1200 character messages on the Dopod to now usually staying below ~3 unit/450 character messages).
In the sciences, we use the second meaning of the word a lot. It is considered a good thing. We propose an idea, or make a claim, then find ways to test the idea/claim. A useful idea in science is one which is said to be "falsifiable", that is, one which it is theoretically possible to disprove. If you can find a way to test your claim, and state beforehand which results will prove that your claim is wrong, then your claim is falsifiable, and is now a scientific claim. Then you run the test, and see what results it gives. If you get any results which don't falslify your claim, then the claim stands for a little longer. If you get results which falsify your claim, you throw the claim away and come up with a new claim. So science moves forward when we make claims and attempt to falsify them.
Using the first meaning of the word, you might say that someone "falsified some data". That would be a bad thing. This is not the common usage of the word in the scientific community, but is a popular understanding of the word elsewhere, so the distinction is worth calling out.
Notably, you can lie about data, but you generally can't lie about a claim; so context is essential in determining whether the verb "falsify": lying about data/evidence/results is bad, but attempting to disprove claims/ideas/hypothesis is good.
Speakers or piezos... Interesting... Most of the ones I've seen, I've assumed had some sort of solenoid flicking back and forth to make the clicks.... Although some of the newer ones seem to have speaker grills on them, so maybe they've been switching over to electronic noise rather than mechanical...
Slashdot Mirror
There's a finer distinction at play (which I think you might already have noticed, but are not commenting on):
Currently female users receive X undesirable messages and Y desirable messages, with X much much larger than Y.
Removing photos on a conventional dating site drops both X and Y to near-zero.
The goal is to drop X to zero, while keeping Y as near as possible to the current value.
It is theorised that this is an impossible goal as long as men are doing the messaging, because the creeps will always out-message the sensible guys. ... BUT... this app doesn't attempt to do that. It does what you're suggesting - drop the incoming message numbers for the women to zero, and force them to take the action. The men don't/can't message the women at all. The men have to prove their worthiness by providing suitable pictures and answering daily questions in an interesting manner. The women can then make the first contact.
Passport scan to get a free certificate?
I've been using StartSSL for years, for a number of certificates - all they verify for the free cert is that I can click on a link sent to the postmaster address for the relevant domain...
If you want anything other than basic class-1 certificates for a single hostname there's a cost, and a more involved process; but that process is similar regardless of who does your identity verification.
If you want free class-1 certificates, there is no additional cost, and no super-secret documentation to send around.
I have no experience with StartCom's organisation verification process. However, for domain-verified class-1 certificates for individual hosts, they offer a free, immediate, trouble-free process which involves no more than clicking a link in my email.
Safari wrapper. http://www.howtogeek.com/184283/why-third-party-browsers-will-always-be-inferior-to-safari-on-iphone-and-ipad/ has you covered...
I assumed you were trying to be funny. But yeah, not everyone knows all of the mystery TLDs...
Your sig is eerily appropriate here...
You must be new here - I'm young in internet years, but even I remember the number of viruses flying around in the days of floppy disks and dial-up modems, long before constant high speed connections...
Or simply temporarily leaving them behind? I'd leave my phone on the desk in my office if I was going to meet a contact I didn't want associated with me...
Yep, I see it more like the razor/blade "loss-leader" model, or the "first one's free to get you hooked" free-samples model, rather than the "freemium" model...
It does do DNS setup (systemd-resolved)
Well, resolved now does DNS caching too...
Monolithic?
Postgresql runs a database server. That's it. Postgresql doesn't include a mailserver just because it needs to send alerts.
Apache runs an HTTP server. That's it. Apache doesn't include DNS and OCSP servers just because sites hosted on it will need name resolution and certificates.
OpenOffice, I'll give you that one. It combines multiple applications into one for historical reasons. I don't like it, but I don't use it so I don't have a dog in that fight.
Monolithic (in the sense used here) implies the combination of multiple essentially independent functions into a single application. Just because Apache and Postgresql are big applications doesn't make them monolithic.
"... with only minor loss of" the primary stated goal of the system?
Taking 30% commission out of everything you sell via the app store and in-app?
I can see them doing this, rather than the much simpler solution of having two ports: a Micro-B port for charging only, and a C port for data/charging.
Compliant with all regulations, simpler for the consumer (no adapter required), minimal outlay (one extra trace on the PCB, one extra component costing fractions of a cent), no questions about cables.
As this is slashdot, the appropriate response would be to turn to Netcraft to confirm it...
http://news.netcraft.com/archi...
Which was from February, and should be read in the context of the February Web Server Survey:
http://news.netcraft.com/archi...
Indeed.
Or the fragment might be part of a statement like "following the issues with the Enron case, we've put in some additional measures to prevent any irregularities in the pension fund" or even "Did you see that episode of the IT Crowd where the new boss was asking the IT department for help deleting the files which showed the irregularities in the pension fund? What a classic..."
http://xkcd.com/1211/ This is a good world....
We shouldn't. They fucked up. We should call them out for fucking up.
What the GP said was not "we should commend them", but "in their defense".
It's a valid defense: they fucked up, they noticed, they cleaned up what they could, and they admitted their mistake and advised people appropriately. That doesn't make their mistake go away, but it changes it from Badness Level 50 (eBay) to Badness Level 30 (Target).
Ditto, from my WinMob-based Dopod 838pro which I had from 2006 to 2010, vs every touchscreen phone I've owned since then. I send fewer and shorter emails from the phone nowadays, and even my sms messages have gotten shorter (from comfortably typing ~8 unit/1200 character messages on the Dopod to now usually staying below ~3 unit/450 character messages).
And broadcasting the world news in Latin too...
Exactly. They were financially secure, they just weren't physically secure...
Is a possible interpretation of the data that "people who don't use much energy, don't feel the need to worry about climate change"?
Especially when the most outstanding fact in there is that when waves "interfere", there is no loss of energy of either wave, which is a well-known result in physics...
Surely if they are writing cheques, then that is already cashless? Sounds like they've beaten the rest of us to it...
This a misunderstanding of the the term "falsify". Unfortunately, there are two well-understood meanings for the word:
In the sciences, we use the second meaning of the word a lot. It is considered a good thing. We propose an idea, or make a claim, then find ways to test the idea/claim. A useful idea in science is one which is said to be "falsifiable", that is, one which it is theoretically possible to disprove. If you can find a way to test your claim, and state beforehand which results will prove that your claim is wrong, then your claim is falsifiable, and is now a scientific claim. Then you run the test, and see what results it gives. If you get any results which don't falslify your claim, then the claim stands for a little longer. If you get results which falsify your claim, you throw the claim away and come up with a new claim. So science moves forward when we make claims and attempt to falsify them.
Using the first meaning of the word, you might say that someone "falsified some data". That would be a bad thing. This is not the common usage of the word in the scientific community, but is a popular understanding of the word elsewhere, so the distinction is worth calling out.
Notably, you can lie about data, but you generally can't lie about a claim; so context is essential in determining whether the verb "falsify": lying about data/evidence/results is bad, but attempting to disprove claims/ideas/hypothesis is good.
Speakers or piezos... Interesting... Most of the ones I've seen, I've assumed had some sort of solenoid flicking back and forth to make the clicks.... Although some of the newer ones seem to have speaker grills on them, so maybe they've been switching over to electronic noise rather than mechanical...