Having finally watched the reworked 4, 5 and 6, I'm guessing he wouldn't make 3.5, just add half an hour of crap he should have left cut out to 1, 2 and 3.
"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." --New York Times, August 23, 1933
"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."
--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."
If all they had is evidence that no one had revoked my credentials after I left and they tried to search my computers, they'd be the ones in trouble. The fact that my successor failed to revoke my credentials is *not* reasonable suspicion...
Yeah, people often talk like that.
My feeling, though, is that if people are unreasonable and corrupt to try to charge you, why do you expect that you're going to slam down some evidence and cite some laws and all of a sudden they're going to acquire common sense?
I'm sure you'd win, but only after both sides have spent a lot of money on lawyers. Winning in court is never more than a Pyhrric victory.
But curiousity a la Facebook and Twitter revealed that a server had actually gone down that day. Apparently there was a 'rm -rf' oopsy!!!
The story continues, but the end result is that he managed to destroy three servers within a month of my leaving. If I had been malicious I don't think I could have caused that much destruction...
The alternate ending is one where a data recovery company does an audit and finds your SSH keys, and the next day the cops have a warrant to search your computers.
When I leave a company, I want *nothing* pointing back to me.
I would recommend subjecting all IT staff to a psychological evaluation test. Myself included. Who wants to work with egotistical assholes? I sure don't. I love working in a non-abusive collaborative team environment.
I tend to agree, but egotistical assholes come in handy when dealing with the someone else's egotistical assholes.
And I don't trust some psych eval to weed out abusive people, mostly because there are so many ways to be abusive. I especially don't trust some test to make a good determination for borderline cases, where someone is a little hard to work with but produces better than average code.
Plus, sooner or later the general public is going to realize that megapixels aren't everything.
Last I checked, unless it's an Apple product, any electronic item marketed to the "general public" is still festooned with idiotic stickers touting pointless numbers and techno-gibberish. (And even Apple does it, they're just a little more tasteful.)
I suspect it's not changing because current behavior is economically rational.
Purchasing an electronic device like a camera that's at the $200 price point. Say a poor purchasing decision will cost you maybe 20% of the price, so, typical loss form being uninformed is $40.
I suspect the effort to become very well informed about these things can easily dwarf $40. And, even if you are informed you can still buy a lemon.
Re:What the hell is he talking about?
on
The Case For Oracle
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it.
It may as well be, because a computer is about as fanatical a purist as you can get. I mean, I drop one fucking semicolon and, by the pages of errors and warnings, gcc wants me hung drawn and quartered for apostasy.
I heard on NPR that the judge declared a mistrial with regards to the remaining 23 accounts and has ordered a retrial. Of course, going into that with wide-spread public knowledge of the other conviction, plus constantly pulling stunts like this, isn't really going to help him. Although, I think the big question is, who would pay $80 to get their picture taken with this greasy douchebag?
If he was just a greasy douchebag, it'd be one thing, but he's also a real character. So is Roland Burris; I'd want my picture with both of them.
As far as recording calls, it's actually much simpler than this. All that is required for recording in two party states is a regular interval beep. Why not make the capability available to all and just insert the beeps?
My old Sony E K750 did this. The only time I ever used it, though, was trying to cancel an account. They just refused to talk to me as long as it was recording.
Now if you want to secretly record, that's different...
There are services that you can route your call through to record it. Short of finding the recording, it's impossible to prove you secretly recorded someone. And in any dispute, you can simply take notes from it and claim you wrote them as you were talking.
I agree. I call it the "liar's law". Of course, with the dirty politics we have in Illinois, it's no wonder legislators don't want their words held against them.
If you think about it, your typical legislator does dozens of interviews, writes pieces and has his or her voting record publicly available. And they've got an opposition that has the resources to dig it all up. Sure, there are scandals tucked away, but they're mostly pathetically small amounts of money and sex you couldn't pay me to watch. The terrible, terrible laws being written are all public record.
There are situations where politicians go back on their promises, but there are specific reasons why, and I see a huge amount of criticism that really comes down to critics seeing what they want in candidates, and being upset when it's not the case. There's also cases when the coverage is thin, for example, when McCain nominated Palin, we essentially stopped paying attention to the presidential candidates for months.
In case you think I'm being naive, also consider this. There are a lot of people in politics, and the vast majority of them have no real reputation, no affiliation with a group anyone has heard of, so these folks really can lie with impunity. Legislators get hit with this stuff all the time, but they generally just have to take it on the chin. (Though the fact that they're beating it by carrying cameras themselves is, to my mind, outstanding.) I'm not trying to make a case that they're necessarily honorable or deserving of our sympathy, just that there are people who are a lot worse and really do a lot of damage to our political system.
Because you're a dumbass wingnut spouting dumbass wingnut memes.
Pretty typical. Liberal posts a stupid liberal meme about how conservatives don't want basic services, I respond with how liberals demand tons of regulations. And you've got no response except (lame) namecalling.
Fired and I didn't deserve it? I'd GIVE them a lawsuit.
Good luck with that, most US jurisdictions have "at-will" employment. Unless they fired you because you are a member of some protected class (female, minority, gay, etc.) you are most likely SOL. Even if they fired you because of that you are SOL unless you can prove it, which is no easy task. In my state they don't even have to give you a reason for letting you go.
Try working where firing people is damned near impossible. It's worse.
And if you read the commerce clause the way I'm guessing you do, you have a ridiculously expansive definition of "commercial." We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, and also other topics such as what planet we're on, what color the sky is, etc.
There's nothing that the lack of that poster would do to stifle free discussions.
1A doesn't say that you're allowed to say something iff it's critical to a free discussion. It says no law can be passed that abridges free speech, and puts no lower bound on what constitutes an abridgment.
Right, next you'll be asking for building and fire codes. I swear, you liberal nanny types are never satisfied!
Having demanded draconian laws for drinking, smoking, eating the wrong food, not buying * insurance, hiring the wrong skin color, making racy jokes, and, yes, building codes that require an army of inspectors to enforce, the liberal nanny types will then be complaining about police abusing their power, and they'll be whining about "law-and-order Republicans." It makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
You could say that of the Progressive movement generally. (Prohibition was part of the Progressive movement, which was religious in origin.) They started with women's suffrage, civil rights, war on poverty, etc.
80 years later, the big dragons are all slain, and now they're chasing around after gay marriage, self-esteem and fast foods, and seeing drunkards and racists behind every corner.
Here in BC the legal limit will be dropping from.08 to.05 soon. Just try arguing against that. If you do, you're immediately regarded as an advocate for drinking and driving, rather than an advocate for moderation.
Tom Emmer, Republican candidate for governor in Minnesota, argued in favor of, basically, due process for people accused of DUI. He's been hammered by the DFL who claim he is pro-drunk driving.
If it were only one time it might be ok, but religious groups seem to think themselves exempt from trademark and copyright law.
Although being non-commercial isn't an automatic defense in IP litigation, it is a big defense. From a moral standpoint, they're not actually doing anyone any harm. And the way these things play out for them, the legal strategy of "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" makes sense.
Now you may say that's just parody, but I don't really buy it when the point is to promote a religious message, not poking fun of the original.
The parody that was intended to have 1A protection was *supposed* to have a political or religious message. 1A only covers things like humor and porn because it's a deliberately broad restriction on the government's power. The point of 1A is, first and foremost, to enable citizens to engage in free discussions of matters vital to their lives and governance. (The right to be an jerk off / be an idiot / whatever is specifically covered by 10A, and is implicit in the Constitution generally.)
A hardened computer hacker has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that systematically destroys all the files on victims' PCs and replaces them with homemade manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins.
Maybe it's because of his past acts?
He was collared in 2008 for violating copyright laws by creating a computer virus that replaced data with an anime image. He was serving a suspended sentence for that offense when he was arrested in connection with the latest virus.
Obviously there's a pattern of acts of mass cartoonery...
I would tag this as "more proof soccer sucks." Really, soccer aficionados claim they see all these advanced movements, and that someone really does play better.
But, let's face it, they don't. They're just a bunch of people running around randomly, and occasionally someone scores by pure chance. That's why the games are always 0-0.
Seeing good soccer in random movement is part of the faith, much like astrologers see divine constellations in the random pattern of stars in the night.
Slashdot Mirror
Having finally watched the reworked 4, 5 and 6, I'm guessing he wouldn't make 3.5, just add half an hour of crap he should have left cut out to 1, 2 and 3.
You want to tell the NY Times they've been wrong for the past century?
Sure, why not?
"There is no famine or actual starvation nor is there likely to be."
--New York Times, Nov. 15, 1931, page 1
"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda."
--New York Times, August 23, 1933
"Enemies and foreign critics can say what they please. Weaklings and despondents at home may groan under the burden, but the youth and strength of the Russian people is essentially at one with the Kremlin's program, believes it worthwhile and supports it, however hard be the sledding."
--New York Times, December 9, 1932, page 6
"You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."
--New York Times, May 14, 1933, page 18
"There is no actual starvation or deaths from starvation but there is widespread mortality from diseases due to malnutrition."
--New York Times, March 31, 1933, page 13
To their credit, they fixed this in Windows XP.
Yes, XP. Specifically, Windows XP SP2.
So, even after all the problems with boot sector viruses, this default behavior persisted through Windows 95, 98, ME, 2K, and XP.
If all they had is evidence that no one had revoked my credentials after I left and they tried to search my computers, they'd be the ones in trouble. The fact that my successor failed to revoke my credentials is *not* reasonable suspicion...
Yeah, people often talk like that.
My feeling, though, is that if people are unreasonable and corrupt to try to charge you, why do you expect that you're going to slam down some evidence and cite some laws and all of a sudden they're going to acquire common sense?
I'm sure you'd win, but only after both sides have spent a lot of money on lawyers. Winning in court is never more than a Pyhrric victory.
But curiousity a la Facebook and Twitter revealed that a server had actually gone down that day. Apparently there was a 'rm -rf' oopsy!!!
The story continues, but the end result is that he managed to destroy three servers within a month of my leaving. If I had been malicious I don't think I could have caused that much destruction...
The alternate ending is one where a data recovery company does an audit and finds your SSH keys, and the next day the cops have a warrant to search your computers.
When I leave a company, I want *nothing* pointing back to me.
Your IT guy might be just fine until his wife leaves him for a younger woman who also works for your company.
And then the IT guy frantically spends all his time trying to work himself into a threesome?
Someone's got to take care of the "Multiple Backdoors".
I would recommend subjecting all IT staff to a psychological evaluation test. Myself included. Who wants to work with egotistical assholes? I sure don't. I love working in a non-abusive collaborative team environment.
I tend to agree, but egotistical assholes come in handy when dealing with the someone else's egotistical assholes.
And I don't trust some psych eval to weed out abusive people, mostly because there are so many ways to be abusive. I especially don't trust some test to make a good determination for borderline cases, where someone is a little hard to work with but produces better than average code.
Plus, sooner or later the general public is going to realize that megapixels aren't everything.
Last I checked, unless it's an Apple product, any electronic item marketed to the "general public" is still festooned with idiotic stickers touting pointless numbers and techno-gibberish. (And even Apple does it, they're just a little more tasteful.)
I suspect it's not changing because current behavior is economically rational.
Purchasing an electronic device like a camera that's at the $200 price point. Say a poor purchasing decision will cost you maybe 20% of the price, so, typical loss form being uninformed is $40.
I suspect the effort to become very well informed about these things can easily dwarf $40. And, even if you are informed you can still buy a lemon.
Java isn't some religious manuscript that needs to be kept "pure" so the true believers won't rise up and slay those who would adulterate it.
It may as well be, because a computer is about as fanatical a purist as you can get. I mean, I drop one fucking semicolon and, by the pages of errors and warnings, gcc wants me hung drawn and quartered for apostasy.
I heard on NPR that the judge declared a mistrial with regards to the remaining 23 accounts and has ordered a retrial. Of course, going into that with wide-spread public knowledge of the other conviction, plus constantly pulling stunts like this, isn't really going to help him. Although, I think the big question is, who would pay $80 to get their picture taken with this greasy douchebag?
If he was just a greasy douchebag, it'd be one thing, but he's also a real character. So is Roland Burris; I'd want my picture with both of them.
" Just grab a nearby vegetable and give yourself a few rough ins and outs when you are not in the mood and that will pretty much do it."
My father was a vegetable, you insensitive clod!
As far as recording calls, it's actually much simpler than this. All that is required for recording in two party states is a regular interval beep. Why not make the capability available to all and just insert the beeps?
My old Sony E K750 did this. The only time I ever used it, though, was trying to cancel an account. They just refused to talk to me as long as it was recording.
Now if you want to secretly record, that's different...
There are services that you can route your call through to record it. Short of finding the recording, it's impossible to prove you secretly recorded someone. And in any dispute, you can simply take notes from it and claim you wrote them as you were talking.
Really? That's not what http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_recording_laws says
I can't wait for the day a defense attorney gives a wiki link as evidence.
Hmmm... Would you count a plaintiff's attorney submitting an article?
it shouldn't be, IMO
I agree. I call it the "liar's law". Of course, with the dirty politics we have in Illinois, it's no wonder legislators don't want their words held against them.
If you think about it, your typical legislator does dozens of interviews, writes pieces and has his or her voting record publicly available. And they've got an opposition that has the resources to dig it all up. Sure, there are scandals tucked away, but they're mostly pathetically small amounts of money and sex you couldn't pay me to watch. The terrible, terrible laws being written are all public record.
There are situations where politicians go back on their promises, but there are specific reasons why, and I see a huge amount of criticism that really comes down to critics seeing what they want in candidates, and being upset when it's not the case. There's also cases when the coverage is thin, for example, when McCain nominated Palin, we essentially stopped paying attention to the presidential candidates for months.
In case you think I'm being naive, also consider this. There are a lot of people in politics, and the vast majority of them have no real reputation, no affiliation with a group anyone has heard of, so these folks really can lie with impunity. Legislators get hit with this stuff all the time, but they generally just have to take it on the chin. (Though the fact that they're beating it by carrying cameras themselves is, to my mind, outstanding.) I'm not trying to make a case that they're necessarily honorable or deserving of our sympathy, just that there are people who are a lot worse and really do a lot of damage to our political system.
Because you're a dumbass wingnut spouting dumbass wingnut memes.
Pretty typical. Liberal posts a stupid liberal meme about how conservatives don't want basic services, I respond with how liberals demand tons of regulations. And you've got no response except (lame) namecalling.
Fired and I didn't deserve it? I'd GIVE them a lawsuit.
Good luck with that, most US jurisdictions have "at-will" employment. Unless they fired you because you are a member of some protected class (female, minority, gay, etc.) you are most likely SOL. Even if they fired you because of that you are SOL unless you can prove it, which is no easy task. In my state they don't even have to give you a reason for letting you go.
Try working where firing people is damned near impossible. It's worse.
Get your facts straight before you post.
Are you nuts? Next you'll be demanding that people read the article!
Non profit doesn't mean non-commercial.
And if you read the commerce clause the way I'm guessing you do, you have a ridiculously expansive definition of "commercial." We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, and also other topics such as what planet we're on, what color the sky is, etc.
There's nothing that the lack of that poster would do to stifle free discussions.
1A doesn't say that you're allowed to say something iff it's critical to a free discussion. It says no law can be passed that abridges free speech, and puts no lower bound on what constitutes an abridgment.
Right, next you'll be asking for building and fire codes. I swear, you liberal nanny types are never satisfied!
Having demanded draconian laws for drinking, smoking, eating the wrong food, not buying * insurance, hiring the wrong skin color, making racy jokes, and, yes, building codes that require an army of inspectors to enforce, the liberal nanny types will then be complaining about police abusing their power, and they'll be whining about "law-and-order Republicans." It makes no fucking sense whatsoever.
You could say that of the Progressive movement generally. (Prohibition was part of the Progressive movement, which was religious in origin.) They started with women's suffrage, civil rights, war on poverty, etc.
80 years later, the big dragons are all slain, and now they're chasing around after gay marriage, self-esteem and fast foods, and seeing drunkards and racists behind every corner.
Here in BC the legal limit will be dropping from .08 to .05 soon. Just try arguing against that. If you do, you're immediately regarded as an advocate for drinking and driving, rather than an advocate for moderation.
Tom Emmer, Republican candidate for governor in Minnesota, argued in favor of, basically, due process for people accused of DUI. He's been hammered by the DFL who claim he is pro-drunk driving.
If it were only one time it might be ok, but religious groups seem to think themselves exempt from trademark and copyright law.
Although being non-commercial isn't an automatic defense in IP litigation, it is a big defense. From a moral standpoint, they're not actually doing anyone any harm. And the way these things play out for them, the legal strategy of "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" makes sense.
Now you may say that's just parody, but I don't really buy it when the point is to promote a religious message, not poking fun of the original.
The parody that was intended to have 1A protection was *supposed* to have a political or religious message. 1A only covers things like humor and porn because it's a deliberately broad restriction on the government's power. The point of 1A is, first and foremost, to enable citizens to engage in free discussions of matters vital to their lives and governance. (The right to be an jerk off / be an idiot / whatever is specifically covered by 10A, and is implicit in the Constitution generally.)
Seriously, how many different versions will the fanbois pay money for?
Not sure, but I doubt even the most hardcore Star Wars nerd comes even remotely close to a typical Beatles fan.
FTFA:
Maybe it's because of his past acts?
Obviously there's a pattern of acts of mass cartoonery...
I would tag this as "more proof soccer sucks." Really, soccer aficionados claim they see all these advanced movements, and that someone really does play better.
But, let's face it, they don't. They're just a bunch of people running around randomly, and occasionally someone scores by pure chance. That's why the games are always 0-0.
Seeing good soccer in random movement is part of the faith, much like astrologers see divine constellations in the random pattern of stars in the night.