Employers need to keep in mind that age discrimination is ILLEGAL in the United States.
I would have denied the reality had I not experienced it first hand. It's real and pervasive. Also impossible to prove. A company hires someone younger and less accomplished, how do you prove that age was the deciding factor? Nothing goes on paper or email.
I'm going to have to start my own business again. Searching for a programming job when you're over 50 is a Sisyphean endeavor. It's all a go until you get to the interview and, no matter how well that goes, the job goes to a younger candidate. You know it's happening, but proving it is impossible.
You may have a point. Then again Victoria's Secret sued people over Victoria and Secret separately, in the context of lingerie and apparel shops, and lost pretty much all of those cases.
I still think _BOOK is overly broad and their mark scope overreaches, but it's entirely possible the courts will see it your way. There will be plenty of discussion that _BOOK as in YEARBOOK or PICTURE BOOK are generic terms in broad usage.
I cam still hope that an over-reaching corporate dick that makes their living selling information about their users gets slapped down for being a bully.
Watch the video, it looks really interesting. I think it would be really useful during those times when you're not getting the results you anticipated.
I think it'll be more popular than Wave (okay, that was a low blow).
Given that teachbook is a social networking site but for a specialized niche, I think it's fair to say that they are doing that.
If you go to http://www.uspto.gov/ and search for "book" you get over 9.000 results, including hankybook, partybook, planbook mobook. I'm pretty sure this is FB's record. Their description of services pretty much covers the earth, moon and stars online. It seems overly broad, even including peer-to-browser photo sharing services namely, providing a website featuring technology enabling users to upload, view and download digital photos. I'm not sure how it got through without being narrowed.
Normally there's a reference that says it's not an attempt to trademark a generic word (like "book") but I don't see that in FB's app. Probably because their mark is FACEBOOK and not FACE BOOK. I'm not entirely sure, I've only been through the process a couple times.
Seems like a stretch to me. If their name was "teacherfacebook", then I'd side with FB. But trying to trademark "book" in the context of any online collection of individuals seems way out of line. Since one could argue that online repositories are merely a modern evolution of books, then you're basically letting FB trademark the world.
we can talk about peak helium but the second you try to discuss peak oil or peak coal you're a treehugger
Not really seeing how that's a troll, it's the truth. Maybe because helium doesn't have billions in Saudi oil money, funding from the Koch family and The Carlyle Group trying to influence social opinions about balloons.
If Israel struck the plant and killed a bunch of Russian engineers, that would be bad. If the strike put a radioactive plum in the air that drifted over part of China or India, that would be worse.
Not to mention the fact that if the Russians really got cheesed off they could just sell Iran warheads.
Any country with enough money and enough time is going to be able to acquire nuclear weapons. We might have to face the fact that there may not always be a military solution.
Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons, they don't feel the need to squander their collective treasure maintaining 12 aircraft carrier groups and they seem to get along just fine. Let some other country pick up some of the tab for being the world's policeman. We need that money here.
In Sweden, where you can literally get laid by tripping on a bitch?
In other news at this hour flights from the US to Sweden were suddenly sold out as thousands of/. readers crawled out of their parent's basement, subjecting their pasty white skin to the light of day, for a chance to connect with real women.
Sadly true, but there's so much about DNA analysis that you don't get on an episode of CSI. On TV DNA analysis only takes a few minutes and matches are proudly announced by flashing messages on the DNA machine.
In real life good DNA matching takes days, cost a lot of money and, as the article points out, matching can be in the eye of the beholder. DNA samples are incredibly easy to contaminate, whole labs can become contaminated over time if they don't have and follow strict contamination protocols. And there has been more than one reported case of harried techs gun-decking DNA analysis when police and prosecutors were certain they had the right guy.
Well done DNA analysis can be an amazing crime fighting tool but the science is not perfect and it's okay to be skeptical. There is no magic identification test that's completely fool proof. And DNA tests are only as good as the fool running the test.
And you'd be wrong. Even with a directly connected Linux box it takes someone manually targeting that machine. As far as I know, no one has successfully automated *nix hacking and certainly not any kind of effective drive-by attack. Even if the automated attack gets a foot in the door, they still have to manually find a way to escalate privileges.
If you still believe this, put up a Linux server completely exposed to the Internet, and broadcast all over IRC that your server is badass and can't be hacked.
Connect that same box running Windows directly to the internet and you don't even have to announce its presence. It's like auto-hork.
Linux doesn't have the security issues that Windows does, but mostly it's because its less popular,
Another fallacy. If that were true then the exploits out in the wild should be relative to percentage of machines running that OS. And yet there aren't any. That popularity tripe was a talking point from a MSFT PR firm advertising campaign that went around a few years ago.
I saw a couple of those ads, which was pretty funny to suddenly see a strange file tree on my Linux box. It was pretty scary. For a minute I thought my PC had been infected with Windows.
Loan mortgages to people who can't pay them back, else the US Government will drag you into court and prosecute you.
That's a damn lie. One of those trite, Fox News talking points you repeat over and over with no basis in fact. I had my real estate license during the go-go years and there wasn't any government regulation requiring lenders to give loans to people who couldn't afford it. They were not allowed to red line or discriminate based on zip code, but it didn't matter. They would write anyone with a pulse, no income verification, nothing. It was pure greed coupled with a corrupt industry. Even when I tried to convince my clients to buy something they could afford, there would be a mortgage broker telling them that was bad advice and trying to push one of the gadget mortgages with variable interest rates. These were in affluent, suburban, upper middle class neighborhoods. The areas hardest hit when the market collapsed, not the poor urban areas you're trying to hang.
But way to try and rewrite history. It was the corrupt, inept leadership you supported, so I can see why you're so anxious to find a scapegoat. Even if it's in the rear view mirror. It can't ever be that the people you supported were incompetent, that you were a dupe and voted for stupid people, it's always someone else.
plugs the security hole exploited by the iPhone Dev Team to allow pain-free jailbreaking of the iPhone 4...
The harder Apple fights to lock the phones the more it will push developers and power users to Android.
Although we've seen plenty of examples that the more open platform doesn't always win, in this case the open platform also has big time corporate backing and service. Android is a viable alternative to iPhone, for many people the superior alternative.
Apple has been pursuing the walled kingdom strategy for so long, I don't think they even consider other models. There's no compromise. Apple's way or the Java highway.
Just like picking between cellular providers or big banks. Unregulated markets tend to function more like a cartel than a true open market. Limiting choices and competition instead of enhancing it.
We've been listening to the government is bad tripe for 40 years. What we got back for it were environmental disasters, economic train wrecks, the concentration of wealth, higher prices, less competition and corporate rule.
There's nothing free about the market we have today.
But that's a good thing in my book. Takes a little longer to get things set up and configured, but once you do, it stays working. No Wednesday am WTF?! No panic when the virus of the day rolls around.
It took Microsoft until Windows 7 to produce an OS almost as boring.
If you were responding to the parent, I didn't really get that he was all that far off from the article. It seems to suggest that the generation growing up with the internet treats it like my generation treated the telephone. Just a part of everyday life that's always been there and they're just not all that fascinated by it. It's a tool, nothing more.
That may not be intuitive, but it's not surprising either.
'With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay,'
I think that seems like a great idea. It at least pays token respect to net neutrality and is a win for both companies.
It's also not a stretch they'd want to keep this quiet. The move would vault Google/Verizon out ahead of the competition and put Google at an advantage for content delivery. You could almost hear the giant sucking sound from AT&T.
Could also be a move to stave off potential regulation. Or acceptance that, sooner or later, the FCC will be in a position to enforce net neutrality. Google is still in a good position either way.
Any web service, just create a TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] container.
Absolutely. Unless you give the container a really obvious name, someone searching your computer might not even recognize it as an encrypted container. Use a really long pass phrase and there's less concern about brute force, unless you think the NSA wants to see what you have on your USB drive. You can utilize hidden containers, so once you've sat in jail for a week for contempt of court, you'll have something to hand over.
Slashdot Mirror
Employers need to keep in mind that age discrimination is ILLEGAL in the United States.
I would have denied the reality had I not experienced it first hand. It's real and pervasive. Also impossible to prove. A company hires someone younger and less accomplished, how do you prove that age was the deciding factor? Nothing goes on paper or email.
I'm going to have to start my own business again. Searching for a programming job when you're over 50 is a Sisyphean endeavor. It's all a go until you get to the interview and, no matter how well that goes, the job goes to a younger candidate. You know it's happening, but proving it is impossible.
You may have a point. Then again Victoria's Secret sued people over Victoria and Secret separately, in the context of lingerie and apparel shops, and lost pretty much all of those cases.
I still think _BOOK is overly broad and their mark scope overreaches, but it's entirely possible the courts will see it your way. There will be plenty of discussion that _BOOK as in YEARBOOK or PICTURE BOOK are generic terms in broad usage.
I cam still hope that an over-reaching corporate dick that makes their living selling information about their users gets slapped down for being a bully.
Watch the video, it looks really interesting. I think it would be really useful during those times when you're not getting the results you anticipated.
I think it'll be more popular than Wave (okay, that was a low blow).
Given that teachbook is a social networking site but for a specialized niche, I think it's fair to say that they are doing that.
If you go to http://www.uspto.gov/ and search for "book" you get over 9.000 results, including hankybook, partybook, planbook mobook. I'm pretty sure this is FB's record. Their description of services pretty much covers the earth, moon and stars online. It seems overly broad, even including peer-to-browser photo sharing services namely, providing a website featuring technology enabling users to upload, view and download digital photos. I'm not sure how it got through without being narrowed.
Normally there's a reference that says it's not an attempt to trademark a generic word (like "book") but I don't see that in FB's app. Probably because their mark is FACEBOOK and not FACE BOOK. I'm not entirely sure, I've only been through the process a couple times.
Seems like a stretch to me. If their name was "teacherfacebook", then I'd side with FB. But trying to trademark "book" in the context of any online collection of individuals seems way out of line. Since one could argue that online repositories are merely a modern evolution of books, then you're basically letting FB trademark the world.
we can talk about peak helium but the second you try to discuss peak oil or peak coal you're a treehugger
Not really seeing how that's a troll, it's the truth. Maybe because helium doesn't have billions in Saudi oil money, funding from the Koch family and The Carlyle Group trying to influence social opinions about balloons.
If Israel struck the plant and killed a bunch of Russian engineers, that would be bad. If the strike put a radioactive plum in the air that drifted over part of China or India, that would be worse.
Not to mention the fact that if the Russians really got cheesed off they could just sell Iran warheads.
Any country with enough money and enough time is going to be able to acquire nuclear weapons. We might have to face the fact that there may not always be a military solution.
Canada doesn't have nuclear weapons, they don't feel the need to squander their collective treasure maintaining 12 aircraft carrier groups and they seem to get along just fine. Let some other country pick up some of the tab for being the world's policeman. We need that money here.
In Sweden, where you can literally get laid by tripping on a bitch?
In other news at this hour flights from the US to Sweden were suddenly sold out as thousands of /. readers crawled out of their parent's basement, subjecting their pasty white skin to the light of day, for a chance to connect with real women.
Sadly true, but there's so much about DNA analysis that you don't get on an episode of CSI. On TV DNA analysis only takes a few minutes and matches are proudly announced by flashing messages on the DNA machine.
In real life good DNA matching takes days, cost a lot of money and, as the article points out, matching can be in the eye of the beholder. DNA samples are incredibly easy to contaminate, whole labs can become contaminated over time if they don't have and follow strict contamination protocols. And there has been more than one reported case of harried techs gun-decking DNA analysis when police and prosecutors were certain they had the right guy.
Well done DNA analysis can be an amazing crime fighting tool but the science is not perfect and it's okay to be skeptical. There is no magic identification test that's completely fool proof. And DNA tests are only as good as the fool running the test.
but better security is not one of them.
And you'd be wrong. Even with a directly connected Linux box it takes someone manually targeting that machine. As far as I know, no one has successfully automated *nix hacking and certainly not any kind of effective drive-by attack. Even if the automated attack gets a foot in the door, they still have to manually find a way to escalate privileges.
If you still believe this, put up a Linux server completely exposed to the Internet, and broadcast all over IRC that your server is badass and can't be hacked.
Connect that same box running Windows directly to the internet and you don't even have to announce its presence. It's like auto-hork.
Linux doesn't have the security issues that Windows does, but mostly it's because its less popular,
Another fallacy. If that were true then the exploits out in the wild should be relative to percentage of machines running that OS. And yet there aren't any. That popularity tripe was a talking point from a MSFT PR firm advertising campaign that went around a few years ago.
there are people who believe them and will vote for them.
Too many people spending too much time watching the Fox Propaganda Network.
I saw a couple of those ads, which was pretty funny to suddenly see a strange file tree on my Linux box. It was pretty scary. For a minute I thought my PC had been infected with Windows.
Loan mortgages to people who can't pay them back, else the US Government will drag you into court and prosecute you.
That's a damn lie. One of those trite, Fox News talking points you repeat over and over with no basis in fact. I had my real estate license during the go-go years and there wasn't any government regulation requiring lenders to give loans to people who couldn't afford it. They were not allowed to red line or discriminate based on zip code, but it didn't matter. They would write anyone with a pulse, no income verification, nothing. It was pure greed coupled with a corrupt industry. Even when I tried to convince my clients to buy something they could afford, there would be a mortgage broker telling them that was bad advice and trying to push one of the gadget mortgages with variable interest rates. These were in affluent, suburban, upper middle class neighborhoods. The areas hardest hit when the market collapsed, not the poor urban areas you're trying to hang.
But way to try and rewrite history. It was the corrupt, inept leadership you supported, so I can see why you're so anxious to find a scapegoat. Even if it's in the rear view mirror. It can't ever be that the people you supported were incompetent, that you were a dupe and voted for stupid people, it's always someone else.
"let companies police themselves"
Almost as well as letting banks and investment companies police themselves.
Or oil companies policing themselves.
Or government contractors with automatic weapons police themselves.
And the deregulated airline industry has done wonders for air travel.
Government bad, corporate self-regulation good. Just stick to that line and ignore any evidence to the contrary.
plugs the security hole exploited by the iPhone Dev Team to allow pain-free jailbreaking of the iPhone 4...
The harder Apple fights to lock the phones the more it will push developers and power users to Android.
Although we've seen plenty of examples that the more open platform doesn't always win, in this case the open platform also has big time corporate backing and service. Android is a viable alternative to iPhone, for many people the superior alternative.
Apple has been pursuing the walled kingdom strategy for so long, I don't think they even consider other models. There's no compromise. Apple's way or the Java highway.
What other service provider?
Just like picking between cellular providers or big banks. Unregulated markets tend to function more like a cartel than a true open market. Limiting choices and competition instead of enhancing it.
We've been listening to the government is bad tripe for 40 years. What we got back for it were environmental disasters, economic train wrecks, the concentration of wealth, higher prices, less competition and corporate rule.
There's nothing free about the market we have today.
But that's a good thing in my book. Takes a little longer to get things set up and configured, but once you do, it stays working. No Wednesday am WTF?! No panic when the virus of the day rolls around.
It took Microsoft until Windows 7 to produce an OS almost as boring.
Hot Piece Of Ass. Aka tart, trollop, strumpet, floozy or hussy.
But still an HPOA.
Because the article supports the opposite.
If you were responding to the parent, I didn't really get that he was all that far off from the article. It seems to suggest that the generation growing up with the internet treats it like my generation treated the telephone. Just a part of everyday life that's always been there and they're just not all that fascinated by it. It's a tool, nothing more.
That may not be intuitive, but it's not surprising either.
this, has to be the point where the sane realizes that this does not work.
The Supreme Court handed Monsanto the license to sue small farmers. Clarence Thomas used to work for Monsanto and didn't recuse himself from the case.
So if you're looking for sanity, you're barking up the wrong tree. Follow the money, you'll have better luck.
'With servers so close to users, Google could not only send its data faster but also avoid sending it over the Internet backbone that connects service providers and for which they all pay,'
I think that seems like a great idea. It at least pays token respect to net neutrality and is a win for both companies.
It's also not a stretch they'd want to keep this quiet. The move would vault Google/Verizon out ahead of the competition and put Google at an advantage for content delivery. You could almost hear the giant sucking sound from AT&T.
Could also be a move to stave off potential regulation. Or acceptance that, sooner or later, the FCC will be in a position to enforce net neutrality. Google is still in a good position either way.
Sounds like good business to me.
Maybe they should go into chat rooms and ask for help...with the CAPS lock on, of course.
Looks like they'll have to play rock, papermaster, scissors to see who gets the job next.
Any web service, just create a TrueCrypt [truecrypt.org] container.
Absolutely. Unless you give the container a really obvious name, someone searching your computer might not even recognize it as an encrypted container. Use a really long pass phrase and there's less concern about brute force, unless you think the NSA wants to see what you have on your USB drive. You can utilize hidden containers, so once you've sat in jail for a week for contempt of court, you'll have something to hand over.
Google has denied these claims
I'm such a liar, liar, liar, my pants are on fire and I'm writing for the New York- yes, I'm writing for the New Yoooork Tiiiiiiimeessss!
Thank you! Thank you! I'm here all week!