Using Docker if you are not a developer who can read through some of its code is an automatic security threat. Try compiling it with the network wire pulled out.
Oh, and DevOps existed long before Docker existed. It's not limited to orchestration. In fact, if you think all developers have to deal with orchestration issues, you are a buffoon.
A guy who i snot able to administer a linux box, set up a CI system on it AND can not develop, I never would hire.
Unfortunately, people like you are not the only ones wasting organizations' money. Most projects which grow in budget and take too much time and too much resources are that way because they are ill conceived. Projects which are well-conceived require very few resources to maintain. But you, and people like you, grow in your influence because of your incompetence -- not despite of it. The more people depend on the work you give them, the more voices there are to support your way of doing things. While efficient projects get done, work seamlessly, and make it look so easy that they seem irrelevant. You are the way of how bureaucracies form.
You stop hearing higher frequencies with age. Presumably, some people can also be genetically predisposed to hear higher or lower frequencies better. If you shift the pitch in one direction or the other you can get both groups to hear "laurel" or "yerry".
By using the simple built-in sound effects of the sound card, I can get it to drop the "L" sound, so it becomes "yerry". It works by simply downshifting pitch by -4. But the pink noise from the "r" doesn't disappear under any effects that I tried adding. There is about 20 different environmental effects and 15 different equalizer effects. None give me "yanny" -- only "yerry". If I shift the pitch up by +4, then it's always "laurel".
Which means that pronouncing it in this way is illegal. While it may not stop these types of things from happening under the table, it does stop them from happening out in the open en masse. So while a secretary may donate money that her boss asked her to donate, you don't see people opening storefronts where anyone who comes in and signs their name gets to donate $2800 of someone else's money.
Foreign born? Or non-citizen? There is plenty of foreign-born US citizens. A conviction for a crime committed after becoming a citizen does not effect citizenship. For all intents an purposes a foreign-born US citizen is the same as a US-born US citizen. It doesn't matter how people "feel" about that. Citizenship rights of fellow citizens don't get diminished because some people feel they should. Let's hope they never do.
As for whether actual foreigners influencing elections is something that "should" be illegal, well, they can't contribute anything of value to political candidates. But if some country's citizens want to start an information campaign (let's say against a war that is being waged against their country or promoting tourism in their country), then that's the kind of political and commercial speech which has always been legal and I think we just assume that it should remain legal because it's part of our conversation as a society.
Someone can't give you a pile of cash and say "I am over my specific limit of how much I can donate to candidate X, but can you donate this money in your name to candidate X?"
I am not sure that NRA advertises at all. They could be just as effective by sending info letters to their members. Their largest strength is in their large base of single-issue voters (the members, who also supply as much as 50% of NRA's budget).
But I do think that one should show an id before voting. I agree with OP on that. I just don't quite agree with what it is one does when one buys a political ad.
No, voting is not a subset of talking. Voting is a subset of governing. You don't vote for someone with whom you agree on everything. You vote for someone who will be making decisions which will have actual effect on lives. Voting is not an opinion poll. It's a choice of actions to actually take.
The scandal is based on the assumption that people trust their data to be private. But anyone who is privacy-conscious is already staying away from Facebook. And for this self-filtered population the scandal is not much of a scandal.
I think the question is whether you have to show your id before you can talk rather than whether you have to show your id before you can vote. BTW, I do agree that you should show your id before paying money to put up an ad saying "John Smith is a crook and should not be trusted with a political office", but I also think the distinction between who can vote and who can talk is a thing.
I'll be the 1st. This does not attack the free speech of Russians. But attacking free speech of Russians in general is not better than attacking free speech of US citizens in particular. Free speech is afforded to all persons -- not all citizens. It is one of the moment important tenants of our society. And it is far, far, far better to allow speech to more people than to restrict in a way which does not allow trolls to troll. Hate speech should be legal. Offensive speech must be legal. Political speech should be legal for all (even for convicted felons). And if you don't like it, you are the one trying to undermine our Democracy.
That's FUD. You can't just come in and vote. Those legislative proposals are merely about more stringent identification requirements.
Not legally. But there is no active enforcement of laws which prohibit it. There is incidental enforcement. It's the difference between a traffic ticket and a domestic violence call. There is a dedicated police force to actively enforce moving violations. There is no dedicated police force to catch illegal voting. But if someone notices and reports it (like a domestic disturbance), then it gets prosecuted. And without active enforcement, there is simply no way of knowing how frequently fraudulent voting happens.
It's illegal to make political donations with money that someone else asked you to donate. But it's actually still unclear if it's legal or not to place ads with money given to you by someone else. It's not covered by the FEC, either.
Slashdot Mirror
Using Docker if you are not a developer who can read through some of its code is an automatic security threat. Try compiling it with the network wire pulled out.
Oh, and DevOps existed long before Docker existed. It's not limited to orchestration. In fact, if you think all developers have to deal with orchestration issues, you are a buffoon.
And a plane.
A guy who i snot able to administer a linux box, set up a CI system on it AND can not develop, I never would hire.
Unfortunately, people like you are not the only ones wasting organizations' money. Most projects which grow in budget and take too much time and too much resources are that way because they are ill conceived. Projects which are well-conceived require very few resources to maintain. But you, and people like you, grow in your influence because of your incompetence -- not despite of it. The more people depend on the work you give them, the more voices there are to support your way of doing things. While efficient projects get done, work seamlessly, and make it look so easy that they seem irrelevant. You are the way of how bureaucracies form.
No, in DevOps there is no distinction between developers and QA. It's as insane as it sounds.
He should provide all the documentation which demonstrates that he has stopped beating his wife.
Shut up, Hillary.
So can Twitter itself suspend accounts? Since that would be blocking them from reaching out to Trump?
Well, if the account follows @readDonaldTrump, and gets banned, they might have a case (assuming this ruling holds up).
Shut up, Hillary!
Shut up, Hillary!
You stop hearing higher frequencies with age. Presumably, some people can also be genetically predisposed to hear higher or lower frequencies better. If you shift the pitch in one direction or the other you can get both groups to hear "laurel" or "yerry".
By using the simple built-in sound effects of the sound card, I can get it to drop the "L" sound, so it becomes "yerry". It works by simply downshifting pitch by -4. But the pink noise from the "r" doesn't disappear under any effects that I tried adding. There is about 20 different environmental effects and 15 different equalizer effects. None give me "yanny" -- only "yerry". If I shift the pitch up by +4, then it's always "laurel".
Which means that pronouncing it in this way is illegal. While it may not stop these types of things from happening under the table, it does stop them from happening out in the open en masse. So while a secretary may donate money that her boss asked her to donate, you don't see people opening storefronts where anyone who comes in and signs their name gets to donate $2800 of someone else's money.
Foreign born? Or non-citizen? There is plenty of foreign-born US citizens. A conviction for a crime committed after becoming a citizen does not effect citizenship. For all intents an purposes a foreign-born US citizen is the same as a US-born US citizen. It doesn't matter how people "feel" about that. Citizenship rights of fellow citizens don't get diminished because some people feel they should. Let's hope they never do.
As for whether actual foreigners influencing elections is something that "should" be illegal, well, they can't contribute anything of value to political candidates. But if some country's citizens want to start an information campaign (let's say against a war that is being waged against their country or promoting tourism in their country), then that's the kind of political and commercial speech which has always been legal and I think we just assume that it should remain legal because it's part of our conversation as a society.
Someone can't give you a pile of cash and say "I am over my specific limit of how much I can donate to candidate X, but can you donate this money in your name to candidate X?"
I am not sure that NRA advertises at all. They could be just as effective by sending info letters to their members. Their largest strength is in their large base of single-issue voters (the members, who also supply as much as 50% of NRA's budget).
But I do think that one should show an id before voting. I agree with OP on that. I just don't quite agree with what it is one does when one buys a political ad.
No, voting is not a subset of talking. Voting is a subset of governing. You don't vote for someone with whom you agree on everything. You vote for someone who will be making decisions which will have actual effect on lives. Voting is not an opinion poll. It's a choice of actions to actually take.
The scandal is based on the assumption that people trust their data to be private. But anyone who is privacy-conscious is already staying away from Facebook. And for this self-filtered population the scandal is not much of a scandal.
I think the question is whether you have to show your id before you can talk rather than whether you have to show your id before you can vote. BTW, I do agree that you should show your id before paying money to put up an ad saying "John Smith is a crook and should not be trusted with a political office", but I also think the distinction between who can vote and who can talk is a thing.
Well, Republicans are, by definition, Americans. So why wouldn't they expect free speech as a norm?
Unfortunately, it's easy enough to fake a scan of a driver's license or passport.
It's also illegal. Very illegal, in fact.
I'll be the 1st. This does not attack the free speech of Russians. But attacking free speech of Russians in general is not better than attacking free speech of US citizens in particular. Free speech is afforded to all persons -- not all citizens. It is one of the moment important tenants of our society. And it is far, far, far better to allow speech to more people than to restrict in a way which does not allow trolls to troll. Hate speech should be legal. Offensive speech must be legal. Political speech should be legal for all (even for convicted felons). And if you don't like it, you are the one trying to undermine our Democracy.
That's FUD. You can't just come in and vote. Those legislative proposals are merely about more stringent identification requirements.
Not legally. But there is no active enforcement of laws which prohibit it. There is incidental enforcement. It's the difference between a traffic ticket and a domestic violence call. There is a dedicated police force to actively enforce moving violations. There is no dedicated police force to catch illegal voting. But if someone notices and reports it (like a domestic disturbance), then it gets prosecuted. And without active enforcement, there is simply no way of knowing how frequently fraudulent voting happens.
It's illegal to make political donations with money that someone else asked you to donate. But it's actually still unclear if it's legal or not to place ads with money given to you by someone else. It's not covered by the FEC, either.
arrived where? It said that the policy was made consistent with what it has always been for the traditional media.