At our phone job, we actually encourage the call-center employees to doodle, because it's a) not on your screen, where the work/customer record is supposed to be (at all times excepting breaks), which makes it much better than either youtube or reading the news and b) it's something that's easy to stop if the customer picks up the phone, since it's an outcall position with no auto-dialers, a lot of time is spent repeating three dead simple steps of clicking onto the next record, pressing the dial button, until you have someone on the phone and just waiting for an opportunity to read the script and introduce one's self, only to be told that you've woken up the wrong person and you should call back/never call again.
(I feel sorry describing it that way, pretty sure it's not as bad as it sounds, but I don't run the phones so I honestly can't say how much it sucks.)
I have seen the more impressive doodles going onto the refrigerator and whiteboard, we keep plenty of whiteboard magnets mostly for this purpose.
It is a "language evolves" thing, absolutely. In language evolution, there are two types of change, there is "change from above" and "change from below."
When new vocabulary is introduced as a deliberate or coordinated effort, by a small (oligarch) group of people, that is change from above. It's part of language evolution. Not the darwinian sense of evolution, but darwinian evolution is for biological systems; we call language change "evolution" because it sometimes mimics that process.
When lots of people move from one place to another and they bring their speech patterns with them, and the patterns considered as 'normal' speech in the region becomes more similar to their speech and less similar to the old way of speaking, or when the migrants adapt their speech to pre-existing language in the region where they moved to, that is change from below. It's also change from below if pronunciation shifts, as in the great vowel shift.
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution in language doesn't happen like Orwellian "New-Speak" scenario. That is in the linguistic sense absolutely evolution too. Copyright owners probably don't want your euphemistic extra syllables in "copyright infringement" and would rather refer to it as simply stealing. By making up this newspeak and pedantically insisting that it be used in place of easier to grok 'stealing', which gets across clearly what kind of damage is done, you are the one who is attempting the change from above. It's not the music that's been stolen, it's their right to profit from reproduction and distribution, and that's a thing, tangible or no, it's codified in the law. It's still stealing.
Arguments against elive: It comes with everything and their dog installed -- sorry, as easy as it is to install software in Debian, that does not make it any easier discovering it. Easier to make it clean and cheap to uninstall things. The stable release fit on a 700MB CD. That's not bloated, but the newest development ISOs are now up to DVD size from including LibreOffice and more of everything and their dog. Last I checked, there was no installer in the current development ISOs.
This might be another roadblock for some people.
Arguments for elive: You asked for Debian. It's based on Debian. You may not have wanted to ask for that, I am guessing you are not running Debian Lenny anymore. It's quite out of date. This is an artifact of the Debian release cycle. Actually still an argument/for/ elive. You can apt-get --purge remove anything you don't want. There is also deborphan if that doesn't work for you.
First thing I would usually do is get rid of that ancient version of Firefox and install Chrome and a 64-bit kernel.
I don't think it's a dupe, granted I have only read both summaries and neither article, but the links are different and the headline text is certainly not the same. Two "Google Saves Your Privacy Heroically" articles in as many days, though. You would think they were trying to tell us something.
And geez man, if you can't laugh at yourself....well, download some materials and read up on having a sense of humor.
I actually a word and read this as "down some materials" as in drink yourself stupid, which is helpful especially when watching without the laugh track!
Why do you think it's gone up to $75 to simply take your picture and mail you a new license? The DMV is responsible to pay 100% of its own overhead from the fees that are charged to their patrons/visitors.
Here's what Google has to say on the matter:
private sector Noun The part of the national economy that is not under direct government control.
I think you're on the right direction, the DMV is a public _service_, but I don't think that makes it definitively public sector. Their records might also be public records. Their employees might be required to take the civil service exam. All of this is more meaningful than trying to pigeonhole the whole organization one way or the other, of course. There are no elected officials at the DMV.
While I agree that they should release a new version of Windows 8 as soon as possible, I did not pay for a copy since Windows 3.1 came pre-loaded on my 486-SX, and I don't plan on paying for another OS install until release date of Elive 3.0. I was fortunate to be blessed as a Computer Science whiz, and so I understand a thing about release engineering. This is not a chess match, it's operating systems. At some point you ought to concede that if you plan to release again in 24 hours, and again each day after that, you should not be charging your customers for what you're providing today. It's obviously not finished.
I should hope that by this time, they are so invested in your systems that they won't tolerate incompatible changes, and no amount of beautification will convince them to fork over cash for a system that's exactly the same as the last iteration.
Bitcoin plans to halve rewards every 210,000 blocks. That's an operational standard. Let's all plan on having something they want every year, and charge $100 per head. If attrition is as big as population growth, then we don't hire any new people and our fixed costs are all covered, forever.
You came to Rochester Institute of Technology in 2010 when I was graduating and I was really glad to see you, because the other choice for commencement speaker was Bill Clinton (ok so it took me 4 years extra to graduate, I was waiting just for you)
My question is, was this performance a one-time event, or do you frequently don the black robe and DEC halo, standing in front of groups of students to bless them and their laptops, on a regular basis? Is there a calendar? When are you coming to Rochester again?
So, on a very small screen, there is a chance that any text that's not right at the top of the page will be below the visible threshold. The judge did not say "at the top of the front page" simply "on the front page." If they had placed it poorly, or if you had a small screen, there was always a chance that it would not be the first thing to greet you when you visited. They simply made the odds closer to 100%.
This is decidedly in compliance, in my esteemed opinion, without compromising the brilliance of their advertising message. I wish I had thought of it, so I could patent it myself.
Fanboy Disclosure: I bought a mac mini about 10 years ago when they first came out. I think I had an iPod once too.
Next you're going to tell us that it's not a huge amount of effort to actually write a book, comparatively, to actually scanning all of the books you claim a stake in and assessing their ownership status, by providing advertising or hosting or otherwise.
We don't have robots that can _write_ a book yet, as far as I know. So what makes anyone think it's safe to leave a robot in charge to review them (for copyright or whatever other purposes) without a human in the loop?
I think we should go back to the model where there is an Account Manager who is responsible for your account, and he reports to a supervisor who answers to a budget, and payment happens.
If they can't help you monetize your churn to a point where both parties can make enough revenue off the transactions to meet a budget and make activities worthwhile, to at least stay afloat, then they drop your account, or vice versa.
I am looking at the news that came out this morning, and the dip in prices a little over a week ago, and struggling to put it together just how these are related. https://mtgox.com/
You can find the weekly and monthly graphs on the main page, link at the very top of the site.
Well it's no wonder that the internet economy is upside down then. Are you a buyer or a seller? I considered buying into First Pirate Savings and Trust when it first came out, because of the name, I did not do it because I had just seen BitScalper go down, and it was pretty clear after things started going wrong that it was either fly-by-night or a big scam altogether. But if I had known they were going to change the name, I certainly would not have invested. That's one of the signs, you know.
Damn... there's no way to claim an AC post as your own once you posted it. Anyway, that was me, not some anonymous coward. I am constantly surprised how people will trust Paypal over Bitcoin and I am not sure if it's just because they haven't used Paypal that much online, or if the number of Paypal frauds is really that low.
Don't those analytic services load an IFrame or some trick enough to get at their own statcounter cookies, and uniquely identify the user (seat)?
Yes, it would increase the chance that you get picked up and noticed as a user, but I don't see this being a problem for IE, since you only have to be noticed once to get counted. This "invisible tabs" isn't something I see throwing the count into 10x territory since that user would still be uniquely identified by the tracking cookies. So I visit 10x as many sites (silently, in the background) as a Chrome user, generating more traffic.
I'm not spawning guest VMs that have additional instances of Chrome, and keep their own separate cookie stores. (OK, so I am, but not because Chrome did it for me. This is not a feature of Chrome. IE users are probably equally likely to have extra IE machines.) Why does any of this make me any more difficult to identify and count by IP/cookies, or skew the numbers in favor of Chrome?
So, Google Chrome users who search on Google are counted as users, but they should not be counted?
Or, they are being counted twice? Or are they being counted for the number of tabs they have open?
What's an "invisible tab?" I don't want to read the article, but I don't understand how it inflates the actual number of chrome users. If the summary indicates what the article actually says, then there's no reason to discount these users, as they're not "actually not running Chrome"
There is sufficient evidence (based on my cursory appraisal of a random scattering of news articles) that Google did the "clean room" implementation of API. In other words, they may have taken the method signatures and package definitions, but they did also replace the method bodies with their own non-copied implementations.
What the jury was asked to decide is whether Google copied the API. The method signatures and package definitions. So, "structure, sequence, and organization."
I don't know why sequence would matter in a dictionary, but structure and organization can only refer to method signatures and package/class definitions here.
Am I being a pedant? It seems like you might not be arguing what I'm arguing. Apologies if you already understood this.
"...a pan-European framework for electronic identification, authentication and signature (Pefias) framework."
Sheesh.
OK, so it's an acronym.
Anything else? "Unveiled this month" -- the summary of the article says Pefias, the linked PDF from the article does not use this acronym, or the expression it's derived from. The PDF does say "pan-European framework for electronic authentication" but not the longer version that explains the spelling of the acronym.
I was really looking for technical information. You know, like is it any different from PGP? Is there any reason it can't be made global? Will this card get me a discount at bars, if I sign up?
Does anyone have any details on Pefias? (Is it an acronym, what does it stand for)
Have they been developing it in secret? All I can find is some Spanish text, perhaps it's a Spanish word? And some diplomat who is convinced that "only [this] Pefias" can provide what they need. So, developed in secret.
If they have gone to the trouble to cut off your hand, chances are you will give them your PIN to avoid losing the other one. (They can threaten to take your other hand, and at this point you'll believe they'd do it... because they've already got your first hand in hand.)
They can also threaten to come back if you report it or change your PIN... now you're in hiding, with only one hand, and your bank account belongs to someone else.
But hey, at least you've got your other hand? One in the hand is worth... guess you should have just gone in yourself and emptied the bank account for them.
Slashdot Mirror
At our phone job, we actually encourage the call-center employees to doodle, because it's a) not on your screen, where the work/customer record is supposed to be (at all times excepting breaks), which makes it much better than either youtube or reading the news and b) it's something that's easy to stop if the customer picks up the phone, since it's an outcall position with no auto-dialers, a lot of time is spent repeating three dead simple steps of clicking onto the next record, pressing the dial button, until you have someone on the phone and just waiting for an opportunity to read the script and introduce one's self, only to be told that you've woken up the wrong person and you should call back/never call again.
(I feel sorry describing it that way, pretty sure it's not as bad as it sounds, but I don't run the phones so I honestly can't say how much it sucks.)
I have seen the more impressive doodles going onto the refrigerator and whiteboard, we keep plenty of whiteboard magnets mostly for this purpose.
It is a "language evolves" thing, absolutely. In language evolution, there are two types of change, there is "change from above" and "change from below."
When new vocabulary is introduced as a deliberate or coordinated effort, by a small (oligarch) group of people, that is change from above. It's part of language evolution. Not the darwinian sense of evolution, but darwinian evolution is for biological systems; we call language change "evolution" because it sometimes mimics that process.
When lots of people move from one place to another and they bring their speech patterns with them, and the patterns considered as 'normal' speech in the region becomes more similar to their speech and less similar to the old way of speaking, or when the migrants adapt their speech to pre-existing language in the region where they moved to, that is change from below. It's also change from below if pronunciation shifts, as in the great vowel shift.
Just don't make the mistake of thinking that evolution in language doesn't happen like Orwellian "New-Speak" scenario. That is in the linguistic sense absolutely evolution too. Copyright owners probably don't want your euphemistic extra syllables in "copyright infringement" and would rather refer to it as simply stealing. By making up this newspeak and pedantically insisting that it be used in place of easier to grok 'stealing', which gets across clearly what kind of damage is done, you are the one who is attempting the change from above. It's not the music that's been stolen, it's their right to profit from reproduction and distribution, and that's a thing, tangible or no, it's codified in the law. It's still stealing.
PS:
From deborphan, there's orphaner. Just reading the man pages, you might not discover:
$ orphaner -a -n
The easiest way to clean up your packages with loads more precision than apt-get remove, by far.
Arguments against elive:
It comes with everything and their dog installed -- sorry, as easy as it is to install software in Debian, that does not make it any easier discovering it. Easier to make it clean and cheap to uninstall things. The stable release fit on a 700MB CD. That's not bloated, but the newest development ISOs are now up to DVD size from including LibreOffice and more of everything and their dog. Last I checked, there was no installer in the current development ISOs.
This might be another roadblock for some people.
Arguments for elive: /for/ elive. You can apt-get --purge remove anything you don't want. There is also deborphan if that doesn't work for you.
You asked for Debian. It's based on Debian. You may not have wanted to ask for that, I am guessing you are not running Debian Lenny anymore. It's quite out of date. This is an artifact of the Debian release cycle. Actually still an argument
First thing I would usually do is get rid of that ancient version of Firefox and install Chrome and a 64-bit kernel.
Did my comment get eaten? Maybe I got stuck at preview...
Try elivecd.
http://elivecd.org/
I don't think it's a dupe, granted I have only read both summaries and neither article, but the links are different and the headline text is certainly not the same. Two "Google Saves Your Privacy Heroically" articles in as many days, though. You would think they were trying to tell us something.
And geez man, if you can't laugh at yourself....well, download some materials and read up on having a sense of humor.
I actually a word and read this as "down some materials" as in drink yourself stupid, which is helpful especially when watching without the laugh track!
Why do you think it's gone up to $75 to simply take your picture and mail you a new license? The DMV is responsible to pay 100% of its own overhead from the fees that are charged to their patrons/visitors.
Here's what Google has to say on the matter:
private sector
Noun
The part of the national economy that is not under direct government control.
I think you're on the right direction, the DMV is a public _service_, but I don't think that makes it definitively public sector. Their records might also be public records. Their employees might be required to take the civil service exam. All of this is more meaningful than trying to pigeonhole the whole organization one way or the other, of course. There are no elected officials at the DMV.
yes, it sounds like giving up.
i am disappoint?
"New Version" = Get another $100
While I agree that they should release a new version of Windows 8 as soon as possible, I did not pay for a copy since Windows 3.1 came pre-loaded on my 486-SX, and I don't plan on paying for another OS install until release date of Elive 3.0. I was fortunate to be blessed as a Computer Science whiz, and so I understand a thing about release engineering. This is not a chess match, it's operating systems. At some point you ought to concede that if you plan to release again in 24 hours, and again each day after that, you should not be charging your customers for what you're providing today. It's obviously not finished.
I should hope that by this time, they are so invested in your systems that they won't tolerate incompatible changes, and no amount of beautification will convince them to fork over cash for a system that's exactly the same as the last iteration.
Bitcoin plans to halve rewards every 210,000 blocks. That's an operational standard. Let's all plan on having something they want every year, and charge $100 per head. If attrition is as big as population growth, then we don't hire any new people and our fixed costs are all covered, forever.
You came to Rochester Institute of Technology in 2010 when I was graduating and I was really glad to see you, because the other choice for commencement speaker was Bill Clinton (ok so it took me 4 years extra to graduate, I was waiting just for you)
My question is, was this performance a one-time event, or do you frequently don the black robe and DEC halo, standing in front of groups of students to bless them and their laptops, on a regular basis? Is there a calendar? When are you coming to Rochester again?
No results found for "the ssl port bug".
https://www.google.com/search?q=the+ssl+port+bug&oq=the+ssl+port+bug
Are you kidding? This is genius.
So, on a very small screen, there is a chance that any text that's not right at the top of the page will be below the visible threshold. The judge did not say "at the top of the front page" simply "on the front page." If they had placed it poorly, or if you had a small screen, there was always a chance that it would not be the first thing to greet you when you visited. They simply made the odds closer to 100%.
This is decidedly in compliance, in my esteemed opinion, without compromising the brilliance of their advertising message. I wish I had thought of it, so I could patent it myself.
Fanboy Disclosure: I bought a mac mini about 10 years ago when they first came out. I think I had an iPod once too.
Next you're going to tell us that it's not a huge amount of effort to actually write a book, comparatively, to actually scanning all of the books you claim a stake in and assessing their ownership status, by providing advertising or hosting or otherwise.
We don't have robots that can _write_ a book yet, as far as I know. So what makes anyone think it's safe to leave a robot in charge to review them (for copyright or whatever other purposes) without a human in the loop?
I think we should go back to the model where there is an Account Manager who is responsible for your account, and he reports to a supervisor who answers to a budget, and payment happens.
If they can't help you monetize your churn to a point where both parties can make enough revenue off the transactions to meet a budget and make activities worthwhile, to at least stay afloat, then they drop your account, or vice versa.
Either that, or the business unit goes under!
http://mtgoxlive.com/orders
So where did the price go down by 30-50%?
I am looking at the news that came out this morning, and the dip in prices a little over a week ago, and struggling to put it together just how these are related.
https://mtgox.com/
You can find the weekly and monthly graphs on the main page, link at the very top of the site.
Insider trading??? :)
Yeah, ok, I'll sue paypal. How did that work out for the last group of folks?
I heard that some people got as much as $2000 back.
Well it's no wonder that the internet economy is upside down then. Are you a buyer or a seller? I considered buying into First Pirate Savings and Trust when it first came out, because of the name, I did not do it because I had just seen BitScalper go down, and it was pretty clear after things started going wrong that it was either fly-by-night or a big scam altogether. But if I had known they were going to change the name, I certainly would not have invested. That's one of the signs, you know.
Damn... there's no way to claim an AC post as your own once you posted it. Anyway, that was me, not some anonymous coward. I am constantly surprised how people will trust Paypal over Bitcoin and I am not sure if it's just because they haven't used Paypal that much online, or if the number of Paypal frauds is really that low.
Don't those analytic services load an IFrame or some trick enough to get at their own statcounter cookies, and uniquely identify the user (seat)?
Yes, it would increase the chance that you get picked up and noticed as a user, but I don't see this being a problem for IE, since you only have to be noticed once to get counted. This "invisible tabs" isn't something I see throwing the count into 10x territory since that user would still be uniquely identified by the tracking cookies. So I visit 10x as many sites (silently, in the background) as a Chrome user, generating more traffic.
I'm not spawning guest VMs that have additional instances of Chrome, and keep their own separate cookie stores. (OK, so I am, but not because Chrome did it for me. This is not a feature of Chrome. IE users are probably equally likely to have extra IE machines.) Why does any of this make me any more difficult to identify and count by IP/cookies, or skew the numbers in favor of Chrome?
Did you look at the article? Geolocation weighting? It's bloody five pages.
I don't come to Slashdot for the articles :)
As usual, the summary makes no sense at all.
So, Google Chrome users who search on Google are counted as users, but they should not be counted?
Or, they are being counted twice? Or are they being counted for the number of tabs they have open?
What's an "invisible tab?" I don't want to read the article, but I don't understand how it inflates the actual number of chrome users. If the summary indicates what the article actually says, then there's no reason to discount these users, as they're not "actually not running Chrome"
Hanging chads!!!!
No. That is not at issue at all.
There is sufficient evidence (based on my cursory appraisal of a random scattering of news articles) that Google did the "clean room" implementation of API. In other words, they may have taken the method signatures and package definitions, but they did also replace the method bodies with their own non-copied implementations.
What the jury was asked to decide is whether Google copied the API. The method signatures and package definitions. So, "structure, sequence, and organization."
I don't know why sequence would matter in a dictionary, but structure and organization can only refer to method signatures and package/class definitions here.
Am I being a pedant? It seems like you might not be arguing what I'm arguing. Apologies if you already understood this.
From the summary, not even TFA:
"...a pan-European framework for electronic identification, authentication and signature (Pefias) framework."
Sheesh.
OK, so it's an acronym.
Anything else? "Unveiled this month" -- the summary of the article says Pefias, the linked PDF from the article does not use this acronym, or the expression it's derived from. The PDF does say "pan-European framework for electronic authentication" but not the longer version that explains the spelling of the acronym.
I was really looking for technical information. You know, like is it any different from PGP? Is there any reason it can't be made global? Will this card get me a discount at bars, if I sign up?
Does anyone have any details on Pefias? (Is it an acronym, what does it stand for)
Have they been developing it in secret? All I can find is some Spanish text, perhaps it's a Spanish word? And some diplomat who is convinced that "only [this] Pefias" can provide what they need. So, developed in secret.
If they have gone to the trouble to cut off your hand, chances are you will give them your PIN to avoid losing the other one.
(They can threaten to take your other hand, and at this point you'll believe they'd do it... because they've already got your first hand in hand.)
They can also threaten to come back if you report it or change your PIN... now you're in hiding, with only one hand, and your bank account belongs to someone else.
But hey, at least you've got your other hand? One in the hand is worth ... guess you should have just gone in yourself and emptied the bank account for them.