This is why you do a minimum wage increase, because it affects a pay increase for the vast majority of workers across the board, not just a few select people.
The cost to businesses should be made up by the increased sales that they get due to the higher spending power of the population in general.
When minimum wage goes up it is customary to increase the wages proportionately for your higher-paid workers as well, not to do so is akin to a pay cut for them. So this will have a positive affect on the majority of higher-paid workers, not just minimum wage earners.
Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.
Note that according to TFA this seems to be exactly what they are claiming, that some "unidentified former member" "broke a contract". The referenced contract would likely be a NDA. The person being sued is this "unidentified former member".
Note that according to TFA this seems to be exactly what they are claiming, that some "unidentified former member" "broke a contract". The referenced contract would likely be a NDA. The person being sued is this "unidentified former member".
I think there would only be a case if someone signed a legally binding non-disclosure agreement prior to sharing the secrets that got published and then only against the person who signed the agreement (whether that be the publisher or someone else who leaked them). If no such agreement was signed then I don't think there's any recourse possible. Of course IANAL and this is just speculation.
So let me get this straight. At the start of the game the computer calls all bets and then it lets the other players train it and change their strategy to take advantage of that training? And they thought this would beat a seasoned professional poker player?
This is basically a beginning poker player (fresh blood) but who is more consistent. A pro will absolutely clobber it.
I'm a US citizen living abroad with a dual-citizen son. I can tell you that there are advantages and disadvantages. The benefits are that they can travel freely to the US and live and work in the US without having to obtain a green card. Also they can travel on either of their pasports largely depending on which country they travel to and they will qualify to receive assistance from any US consulate or embassy when overseas. They will be legally entitled to vote in any federal elections in the US when they turn 18, although if they have never actually lived in the US in practice they can't because no state will allow them to register to vote in that particular state.
The disadvantages are that when they start working they will always have to file a tax return in the US, regardless of where they actually live. For the most part they will receive an exemption for US taxes for any income they receive while working overseas with the exception of self-employment income, if they are legally self-employed then they will have to pay self-employment tax in the US in addition to any tax they pay overseas (some, but not all foreign countries have a self-employment double-tax agreement with the US, though which mitigates this). For me to avoid this tax I had to form a foreign corporation and work for that corporation so I'm not legally self-employed.
Another disadvantage is that they will be required to register for the US selective service when they turn 18 (the draft). There has not actually been a draft since the Vietnam war, though, so this is not likely to become an issue, but it is certainly something to consider.
As stated by the parent they can always renounce citizenship later and avoid the tax and selective service issues, but this is expensive (about $2500USD).
Also speaking of expense, having to file two tax returns means additional accountants fees and additional paperwork, especially if the country you live in has a different tax year than the US (which is very common). Having to maintain two passports is another extra cost as well, but not very expensive when you spread the fees out over the life of the passport.
All of the above said, I made an informed decision to register my own son as a US citizen and I do agree that the benefits outweigh the down sides, but it's certainly not a "nothing to loose" situation, there are downsides and it pays to make an informed decision with full knowledge of them.
The poker bot, as with any poker player will have a strategy and play a certain way under certain circumstances. The way to oppose it is to learn how the bot plays under those circumstances, exploit it to learn what is in the bot's hand in the initial betting rounds (pre-flop, flop and turn) and then use your river bet to make the bot react in a way that is favourable to you. The above is actually rather simplified, but even a "perfect" bot cannot play optimal poker against a foe that alters his game to take advantage of the bot's strategy.
The above, of course is made on the information in the parent article that the bot plays a "static fixed strategy" and it makes its decision based on a complex table. This means that the bot will never vary its game to try to fool the opponent into making the wrong decision, it will always make the "perfect" decision as determined by the table.
So yes, I do believe this bot can be beaten. It is likely little better than if it were to make it's decision based on calculating the odds of it having a winning hand.
The computer scientists who created the bot admit they are not poker players, this in itself is telling.
Yes, but the point is that the police will either get you the PD or they will let you go. If you speak to them without a lawyer present then they have zero incentive to do either.
If you insist on speaking to the PD before you're interviewed by the police then they would have incentive to get you a PD faster if they really want your interview. The whole point is to insist on it, though and not to waver no matter what the police say.
Right, but even an overworked PD will be able to help you more if you contact them first before speaking to the police. At the end of the day it's just utterly stupid to say anything to the police without a lawyer present.
It's done to help with anti-spam in general on the internet. A large percentage of PCs (especially windows PCs) are compromised and blocking outbound port 25 is a standard measure by ISPs to prevent those from being used as spambots. If you have a legitimate need for outbound port 25 traffic then most ISPs will unblock it for you on request (if you have a static IP, that is). That said, even if they do you will still likely be listed on a number of different policy blacklists which you will then have to play whackamole with to get your email accepted by other servers on the internet. A much better approach is to use a relayhost or to get a cheap VPS to relay through.
For one it can't be hijacked as easily as these ISPs are doing.
...which they're *not* doing. This article is a farce written by someone who can't even configure his email client to use the correct port for submission. He's trying to use port 25 which is only for MX to MX communication and not for submission, he should be using 587 and if he did there would very likely be no problems.
Look, most severs these days are configured in such a way that STARTTLS runs on a different port than the plain-text connection.
Wrong. STARTLS specifically allows for both plain text and TLS on the same port.
The server will reject login requests until the STARTTLS handshake is completed.
Partially correct. A well configured server will behave this way on the *submission* port (587) but if the MX port (25) were configured this way then you would be blocking a lot of legitimate email from old servers on the internet that do not support STARTTLS and as such is is not recommended to require STARTTLS for port 25 MX to MX communication. Also even when STARTTLS is used the connection is still plain text until STARTTLS is negotiated.
Thanks for giving me a link to yet another piece of software written by someone who doesn't understand the technology behind it.
(Also: STOP USING STARTTLS!!!)
Wrong again. The only way to have an encrypted SMTP submission channel without STARTTLS (other than tunnelling through ssh or something like that) is via SMTPS (port 465). SMTPS is long ago deprecated and should not be used. Port 465 was *never* officially registered for this use and was essentially "hijacked" and there are only a very small number of old email clients that support SMTPS but do not support STARTTLS. You *should* be using STARTTLS over port 587 which is the submission port. Also STARTTLS is the only legitimate means of encryption between a submission server and an MX.
Of note (which I've also said elsewhere), the real reason the author of the original article had problems is because he is trying to use port 25 for submission. He should be using the submission port (587) and it is highly unlikely that his ISP would be blocking the STARTTLS flag on that port.
Kind of, smtpd_* is for when postfix is the server and smtp_* is for when postfix is the client (ie when it connects to another server to relay mail). At any rate this setting should only be used for submission and not for server to server communication otherwise you will end up blocking mail to and from other servers that do not support TLS (there are many). The default setting for this is "may" which is for "opportunistic" TLS which can fall back to plain text if need be.
If you RTFA you will see that the author is trying to submit mail to port 25 on his email server which is supposed to be for MX to MX communication only. If he were to submit to the proper submission port (587) he would likely find that the STARTTLS flg is not blocked by his ISP, in other words this whole article is a farce written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
This is why you do a minimum wage increase, because it affects a pay increase for the vast majority of workers across the board, not just a few select people.
The cost to businesses should be made up by the increased sales that they get due to the higher spending power of the population in general.
When minimum wage goes up it is customary to increase the wages proportionately for your higher-paid workers as well, not to do so is akin to a pay cut for them. So this will have a positive affect on the majority of higher-paid workers, not just minimum wage earners.
Except that there's other factors in play as well. A minimum wage increase will give the bottom 60+% of workers more spending power, this increased spending will boost the income of local shops which will help to improve the local economy.
This is economics 101, for an economy to work people have to spend money, the more money that people spend the better the economy works. Increasing the spending power of the vast majority of local residents is a very good thing for the local economy.
Note that according to TFA this seems to be exactly what they are claiming, that some "unidentified former member" "broke a contract". The referenced contract would likely be a NDA. The person being sued is this "unidentified former member".
oops, posted to the wrong thread.
Note that according to TFA this seems to be exactly what they are claiming, that some "unidentified former member" "broke a contract". The referenced contract would likely be a NDA. The person being sued is this "unidentified former member".
I think there would only be a case if someone signed a legally binding non-disclosure agreement prior to sharing the secrets that got published and then only against the person who signed the agreement (whether that be the publisher or someone else who leaked them). If no such agreement was signed then I don't think there's any recourse possible. Of course IANAL and this is just speculation.
So let me get this straight. At the start of the game the computer calls all bets and then it lets the other players train it and change their strategy to take advantage of that training? And they thought this would beat a seasoned professional poker player?
This is basically a beginning poker player (fresh blood) but who is more consistent. A pro will absolutely clobber it.
I'm a US citizen living abroad with a dual-citizen son. I can tell you that there are advantages and disadvantages. The benefits are that they can travel freely to the US and live and work in the US without having to obtain a green card. Also they can travel on either of their pasports largely depending on which country they travel to and they will qualify to receive assistance from any US consulate or embassy when overseas. They will be legally entitled to vote in any federal elections in the US when they turn 18, although if they have never actually lived in the US in practice they can't because no state will allow them to register to vote in that particular state.
The disadvantages are that when they start working they will always have to file a tax return in the US, regardless of where they actually live. For the most part they will receive an exemption for US taxes for any income they receive while working overseas with the exception of self-employment income, if they are legally self-employed then they will have to pay self-employment tax in the US in addition to any tax they pay overseas (some, but not all foreign countries have a self-employment double-tax agreement with the US, though which mitigates this). For me to avoid this tax I had to form a foreign corporation and work for that corporation so I'm not legally self-employed.
Another disadvantage is that they will be required to register for the US selective service when they turn 18 (the draft). There has not actually been a draft since the Vietnam war, though, so this is not likely to become an issue, but it is certainly something to consider.
As stated by the parent they can always renounce citizenship later and avoid the tax and selective service issues, but this is expensive (about $2500USD).
Also speaking of expense, having to file two tax returns means additional accountants fees and additional paperwork, especially if the country you live in has a different tax year than the US (which is very common). Having to maintain two passports is another extra cost as well, but not very expensive when you spread the fees out over the life of the passport.
All of the above said, I made an informed decision to register my own son as a US citizen and I do agree that the benefits outweigh the down sides, but it's certainly not a "nothing to loose" situation, there are downsides and it pays to make an informed decision with full knowledge of them.
ClamWin, the windows port of ClamAV which is relied on for mail scanning on just about every Linux/UNIX mail server you run across.
I think there may be a better front end that uses the ClamAV database as well, but I tend to just install ClamWin and call it a day.
The poker bot, as with any poker player will have a strategy and play a certain way under certain circumstances. The way to oppose it is to learn how the bot plays under those circumstances, exploit it to learn what is in the bot's hand in the initial betting rounds (pre-flop, flop and turn) and then use your river bet to make the bot react in a way that is favourable to you. The above is actually rather simplified, but even a "perfect" bot cannot play optimal poker against a foe that alters his game to take advantage of the bot's strategy.
The above, of course is made on the information in the parent article that the bot plays a "static fixed strategy" and it makes its decision based on a complex table. This means that the bot will never vary its game to try to fool the opponent into making the wrong decision, it will always make the "perfect" decision as determined by the table.
So yes, I do believe this bot can be beaten. It is likely little better than if it were to make it's decision based on calculating the odds of it having a winning hand.
The computer scientists who created the bot admit they are not poker players, this in itself is telling.
An air gap can't protect against the idiot operator who plugs in his USB stick to watch a movie in the middle of the night out of boredom.
Yes, but the point is that the police will either get you the PD or they will let you go. If you speak to them without a lawyer present then they have zero incentive to do either.
If you insist on speaking to the PD before you're interviewed by the police then they would have incentive to get you a PD faster if they really want your interview. The whole point is to insist on it, though and not to waver no matter what the police say.
Right, but even an overworked PD will be able to help you more if you contact them first before speaking to the police. At the end of the day it's just utterly stupid to say anything to the police without a lawyer present.
But frankly, if Obama doesn't Veto this, then he is the same scum of the Earth and frankly both sides need to be tossed out on their bums...
It doesn't matter, he can't veto it. 325-100 is a veto-proof passage.
He doesn't have to for it to become law anyways, 325-100 is a veto-proof margin.
I find that I tend to get them after making a few posts, I think their algorithm identifies active participants and gives them points.
It happened in 1998 when the assignment for port 465 as SMTPS was revoked.
There are other options than Amazon, have a look at Madrill
It's done to help with anti-spam in general on the internet. A large percentage of PCs (especially windows PCs) are compromised and blocking outbound port 25 is a standard measure by ISPs to prevent those from being used as spambots. If you have a legitimate need for outbound port 25 traffic then most ISPs will unblock it for you on request (if you have a static IP, that is). That said, even if they do you will still likely be listed on a number of different policy blacklists which you will then have to play whackamole with to get your email accepted by other servers on the internet. A much better approach is to use a relayhost or to get a cheap VPS to relay through.
For one it can't be hijacked as easily as these ISPs are doing.
...which they're *not* doing. This article is a farce written by someone who can't even configure his email client to use the correct port for submission. He's trying to use port 25 which is only for MX to MX communication and not for submission, he should be using 587 and if he did there would very likely be no problems.
TLS in this regard would be handy if you're on an open wi-fi and are sending login information to the mail server.
Yeah, that's pretty much all that STARTTLS really accomplishes.
That would be SMTPS which is deprecated.
Look, most severs these days are configured in such a way that STARTTLS runs on a different port than the plain-text connection.
Wrong. STARTLS specifically allows for both plain text and TLS on the same port.
The server will reject login requests until the STARTTLS handshake is completed.
Partially correct. A well configured server will behave this way on the *submission* port (587) but if the MX port (25) were configured this way then you would be blocking a lot of legitimate email from old servers on the internet that do not support STARTTLS and as such is is not recommended to require STARTTLS for port 25 MX to MX communication. Also even when STARTTLS is used the connection is still plain text until STARTTLS is negotiated.
But take it from a guy who worked on an email client
Thanks for giving me a link to yet another piece of software written by someone who doesn't understand the technology behind it.
(Also: STOP USING STARTTLS!!!)
Wrong again. The only way to have an encrypted SMTP submission channel without STARTTLS (other than tunnelling through ssh or something like that) is via SMTPS (port 465). SMTPS is long ago deprecated and should not be used. Port 465 was *never* officially registered for this use and was essentially "hijacked" and there are only a very small number of old email clients that support SMTPS but do not support STARTTLS. You *should* be using STARTTLS over port 587 which is the submission port. Also STARTTLS is the only legitimate means of encryption between a submission server and an MX.
Of note (which I've also said elsewhere), the real reason the author of the original article had problems is because he is trying to use port 25 for submission. He should be using the submission port (587) and it is highly unlikely that his ISP would be blocking the STARTTLS flag on that port.
Kind of, smtpd_* is for when postfix is the server and smtp_* is for when postfix is the client (ie when it connects to another server to relay mail). At any rate this setting should only be used for submission and not for server to server communication otherwise you will end up blocking mail to and from other servers that do not support TLS (there are many). The default setting for this is "may" which is for "opportunistic" TLS which can fall back to plain text if need be.
If you RTFA you will see that the author is trying to submit mail to port 25 on his email server which is supposed to be for MX to MX communication only. If he were to submit to the proper submission port (587) he would likely find that the STARTTLS flg is not blocked by his ISP, in other words this whole article is a farce written by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.