Used to work for a hosting company and seen it happen all the time. With actual malicious intent a lot of the time - two guys start a business and one of them runs away, has the domain in his name and starts sending mails to the guy still running the business saying "~haha~ you can't have the domain!!". Other times the guy running the business just has a falling out with his IT guy. Real childish carry on, you'd think these guys were old and wise enough not to carry on like this.
Another time we had this 18 y/o guy who made sites for people and the domains were registered to his account but not under his name - the fool threatened to take the site down and keep the domain if she wouldn't go out with him
You know what makes them grow up real fast? An injunction from a court of law.
I love how Senator Rubio fired off a public message condemning them for hiding the fact that they misdirected mail to Cuba. I can see the exchange now...
"You've been concealing the fact that you used the wrong zip code on our missile from the American People!" --Sen. Rubio "And you've been concealing the fact that you're a Moron." --State Department "Touche."
The repair guys I've come across from Dell have mostly been okay. The people on the phone are mostly terrible, and probably get paid little enough that a little data-mining will earn them a LOT more than their salary.
Note: I'm talking about on the consumer side. I'm sure their business side is better.
The repair guys I've come across from Dell have mostly been okay. The people on the phone are mostly terrible, and probably get paid little enough that a little data-mining will earn them a LOT more than their salary.
If it can only *respond* to user messages, that's good--if it can generate them, it creates much more risk for abuse. Responding to user messages can be useful to the user. But the risk FB runs if they open it up too much is that in monetizing their very popular chat feature too directly, they're going to risk pushing people toward other platforms.
Incidentally, I used to have a small perl script run an IM bot when I went on vacation, to see who could tell the difference between me and the bot. It would keep giving them hints...
For fuck's sake, it's 2016 and a fucking child poem from 1930 is still copyright protected?
Has the world gone fully retarded?
No. It's 2016 and there are LOTS of poems from 1930 that never earned their authors a penny.
Long copyright terms are NOT bad because of the poem here or there--they are only utterly ridiculous for the massive projects that earn a fortune that clearly there would be a financial incentive to produce anyway. And they are silly when used to *prevent* derivative works from existing, rather than when used for licensing.
For all the ridiculous arms export regulations around encryption historically, this actually seems much more like serious arms sales. Explicitly selling vulnerabilities, other than in a bug bounty program, is organized crime.
Communication is the main task (and, IMHO, should be the sole one) of managers.
Get rid of that wave of mongols that call themselves "Managers", give the task to someone that can understand both sides, and you will see things going better.
Ideally, sure, but IRL you can have people who are *great* at management and don't code very well, and a limited budget and time so you might not get great management and Knuth-like coding. Basically you're asking people to be competent in two areas and there's a limited supply of people, so you don't want to over-optimize in either direction: soft skills matter even more for manager jobs than they do for programmer jobs, after all, so you might hire someone as a manager who you wouldn't quite hire as a programmer if they have great soft skills and know enough programming.
But didn't Sesame street basically do this? They weren't giving an explicit B, but if the kids became less engaged than some metric suggested they should be then a B was created.
Why is every comment of support thus far posted, at -1, Troll?
Do you fucking idiots even know what a troll mod is used for?
If you've been paying attention, you will notice what appear to be signs of concerted institutional agenda-pushing by silent mods acting in the interests of the US security apparatus, probably the oil lobby, and a few similar entities. I suspect other countries with meaningful cyberwarfare divisions (e.g. China, Israel) have similar units or at least interns whose job it is to do this. It's possible I'm wrong--I haven't attempted a serious study of the phenomenon--but it would be consistent with some really inaccurate modding I've seen from time to time.
Do we really want corporate leadership at Twitter to be in charge of deciding when that's okay and when it should be censored?
WTF? It is their site. Who else should decide?
A bakery is their bakery, so who else should decide whether they have to make cakes for gay weddings? A cab company is their cab company, who else should decide whether they have to accept fares from black people? A building is that landlord's, who else should decide if they should accept Republican tenants?
Sometimes what we do with out property affects others in ways that go beyond the bounds of what society is willing to accept or should be willing to accept. Control of channels of communication is a big deal--which is part of why net neutrality is important, for example, unless you want comcast deciding you will only see news articles that favor their favorite candidate. Twitter is a *massive* communications platform and their censorship policies should arguably be guarded against by more than corporate self-interest.
Someone who is not harmed lacks "standing" to bring a case in federal court, because the constitution requires there be an actual case or controversy--federal courts lack the power to issue advisory opinions. For a constitutionally protected interest, the plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will. The plaintiff also goes on about plaintiff's protected liberty interest in international travel, but that doesn't address the question of whether the harm to plaintiff is the kind of concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent harm necessary to give the plaintiff standing to sue. Unless a lot more of that was in the complaint, the judge isn't going to find it sufficient to issue the injunction.
There are some merits arguments too, but IRL judges care a LOT about standing. This does not prevent someone from filing another lawsuit in the future, and there may be some opportunity to further the argument in the main part of the lawsuit after the injunction fails to issue.
Prohibiting "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice"? Does that include the hate speech against muslims that has become a part of the Trump campaign's effort to get votes? The hate speech against "the great Satan" you get out of some in the middle-east? The hate speech again Israel you get out of millions of people worldwide? The hate speech against Palestine you get out of Israel? The hate speech against ISIS you get out Paris in the wake of the terrorist attacks? The hate speech against Parisian Jews you get out of Parisian Muslims?
Isolationist, anti-foreigner Joe McCarthyism, Anti-Semitism, Donald-Trumpism, there is always someone trying to use fear and hate as part of a power grab in a country's domestic political narrative. Do we really want corporate leadership at Twitter to be in charge of deciding when that's okay and when it should be censored?
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.' We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.
That's a very good example of why something like this can be done well and give people a richer understanding of computing, even if it's not that useful to most programmers.
When I did undergrad, the CS department was interested in getting more women in coding and found really two things: (1) if the intro course was taught by a woman, students were more likely to go into CS, and (2) women interested in taking CS courses were much more interested in taking them for utilitarian reasons, because those courses would be useful for them in another specialty.
And that second group--people who are not computer experts but who learn a lot of computing because it is a useful tech--is a massive group that should not be discounted. Those are the people a program like this can start to influence.
A nuclear weapon is an effective deterrent. Without them, you can be invaded or can be subject to total war, which is almost unthinkable if you have them. With them, invading you is a much, much bigger risk. The stockpile is too big--the sheer size creates a security nightmare--but you want at least some. Whether you need enough to make nuclear war unwinnable is a closer question.
Also, the world should probably always have a few, even if they're locked in a drawer somewhere. Because aliens.
Who gives a shit what foreigners think about the US. It's of no consequence.
Wrong. The U.S. does more than 4 TRILLION dollars a year of business with the rest of the world. Its scientists and schools collaborate with institutions around the world to advance the sum total of human knowledge, and its schools educate and shape the views of many members of the educated and ruling classes in countries around the world. It also has foreign policy interests that range from offering humanitarian relief after natural disasters and combating human trafficking to building coalitions against terrorist regimes that target it.
Just because it's of no immediate concern to you doesn't mean it's unimportant.
They'll be defending themselves from lawsuits within 3.
So what? They're safer than the average driver. Juries on average may prefer to side with the little guy, but what really convinces juries is showing them exactly what happened. The many, many tort cases about car accidents are all about whose story about how the accident occurred is correct.
Anyone defending a robotic car will be *really* good at showing exactly what happened in an accident. It's not just about witness statements any more.
We're already paying a lot of money because of lawsuits around cars. Insurance will ultimately be cheaper with robotic cars involved.
Ford is actually a decently managed company--maybe the only major US Automaker not to declare bankruptcy during the financial crisis.
I've never had an especially good experience with their cars. The last Ford I rented was so short inside that sitting down, the top of my head hit the ceiling. But their trucks are okay.
Either way, though, a self-driving car is a significant competitive advantage, and google has both experience and a lot of mindshare in the space.
Science is in the open, but I pin most of the reporting woes on reporters that really don't understand what they are reporting on.... Anybody can be a science reporter. Anybody can call them-self a scientist as well.
That's how it seems if you've had science training but have never known any reporters. Reporting is a job. You only have a certain (small) amount of time to deal with a subject so you rely on someone else who knows it better. You know you don't understand it very well, certainly not compared to them, and you know you're filtering it for someone else, in a particular spoon-feeding way. You want to be accurate, you want to help a reader who knows less than you've learned from the expert to learn something from the expert, but you also really want to meet your deadline.
You only have half an hour to write it up. Or you only have a 30-second block between Donald Trump and Miley Cyrus. Because people who watch the news would rather have the sound byte to talk about than to understand the science, and if you talk about something in detail they'll change the channel and the news loses money.
And if a media outlet has a dedicated science reporter, you're very lucky--not anybody can be a science reporter, at least not for anyone reputable. There aren't a lot of science reporter jobs out there.
The reporters are workers in a given system. Blaming them for not fixing it is like blaming the guy who installs your cable for Comcast's business model.
Realistically, nerds (for the most part) shouldn't be getting their news from the reporters who report to the masses. That's a way for you to get news if you don't care about understanding stuff. Nerds want to understand stuff. We should get our news from panels of experts, from lectures by experts, or from studies and reports and abstracts of them.
A good expert panel is absolutely amazing and you learn more from it than you would from watching a year of news. Don't blame reporters for doing their job; realize you're not their target demographic, and encourage others to take their news from sources that favor a far more curious mind.
Someone must think that older middle age folks and young seniors are incapable of comprehending intellectual law and using technology.
No, they must think that older middle-age folks and young seniors violating IP laws for no commercial gain and with no violent crime indicated should not be called a "gang." Gang means street thugs (or organized crime with a network of street thugs) when you are talking about criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
Used to work for a hosting company and seen it happen all the time. With actual malicious intent a lot of the time - two guys start a business and one of them runs away, has the domain in his name and starts sending mails to the guy still running the business saying "~haha~ you can't have the domain!!". Other times the guy running the business just has a falling out with his IT guy. Real childish carry on, you'd think these guys were old and wise enough not to carry on like this.
Another time we had this 18 y/o guy who made sites for people and the domains were registered to his account but not under his name - the fool threatened to take the site down and keep the domain if she wouldn't go out with him
You know what makes them grow up real fast? An injunction from a court of law.
I love how Senator Rubio fired off a public message condemning them for hiding the fact that they misdirected mail to Cuba. I can see the exchange now...
"You've been concealing the fact that you used the wrong zip code on our missile from the American People!" --Sen. Rubio
"And you've been concealing the fact that you're a Moron." --State Department
"Touche."
The repair guys I've come across from Dell have mostly been okay. The people on the phone are mostly terrible, and probably get paid little enough that a little data-mining will earn them a LOT more than their salary.
Note: I'm talking about on the consumer side. I'm sure their business side is better.
The repair guys I've come across from Dell have mostly been okay. The people on the phone are mostly terrible, and probably get paid little enough that a little data-mining will earn them a LOT more than their salary.
If it can only *respond* to user messages, that's good--if it can generate them, it creates much more risk for abuse. Responding to user messages can be useful to the user. But the risk FB runs if they open it up too much is that in monetizing their very popular chat feature too directly, they're going to risk pushing people toward other platforms.
Incidentally, I used to have a small perl script run an IM bot when I went on vacation, to see who could tell the difference between me and the bot. It would keep giving them hints...
For fuck's sake, it's 2016 and a fucking child poem from 1930 is still copyright protected?
Has the world gone fully retarded?
No. It's 2016 and there are LOTS of poems from 1930 that never earned their authors a penny.
Long copyright terms are NOT bad because of the poem here or there--they are only utterly ridiculous for the massive projects that earn a fortune that clearly there would be a financial incentive to produce anyway. And they are silly when used to *prevent* derivative works from existing, rather than when used for licensing.
For all the ridiculous arms export regulations around encryption historically, this actually seems much more like serious arms sales. Explicitly selling vulnerabilities, other than in a bug bounty program, is organized crime.
Communication is the main task (and, IMHO, should be the sole one) of managers.
Get rid of that wave of mongols that call themselves "Managers", give the task to someone that can understand both sides, and you will see things going better.
Ideally, sure, but IRL you can have people who are *great* at management and don't code very well, and a limited budget and time so you might not get great management and Knuth-like coding. Basically you're asking people to be competent in two areas and there's a limited supply of people, so you don't want to over-optimize in either direction: soft skills matter even more for manager jobs than they do for programmer jobs, after all, so you might hire someone as a manager who you wouldn't quite hire as a programmer if they have great soft skills and know enough programming.
Enter the 21st century or STFU.
Some of us only have a return key.
But didn't Sesame street basically do this? They weren't giving an explicit B, but if the kids became less engaged than some metric suggested they should be then a B was created.
Also, the question isn't whether they approve of it--it's whether it's *reasonable* under the Constitution.
Why is every comment of support thus far posted, at -1, Troll?
Do you fucking idiots even know what a troll mod is used for?
If you've been paying attention, you will notice what appear to be signs of concerted institutional agenda-pushing by silent mods acting in the interests of the US security apparatus, probably the oil lobby, and a few similar entities. I suspect other countries with meaningful cyberwarfare divisions (e.g. China, Israel) have similar units or at least interns whose job it is to do this. It's possible I'm wrong--I haven't attempted a serious study of the phenomenon--but it would be consistent with some really inaccurate modding I've seen from time to time.
WTF? It is their site. Who else should decide?
A bakery is their bakery, so who else should decide whether they have to make cakes for gay weddings? A cab company is their cab company, who else should decide whether they have to accept fares from black people? A building is that landlord's, who else should decide if they should accept Republican tenants?
Sometimes what we do with out property affects others in ways that go beyond the bounds of what society is willing to accept or should be willing to accept. Control of channels of communication is a big deal--which is part of why net neutrality is important, for example, unless you want comcast deciding you will only see news articles that favor their favorite candidate. Twitter is a *massive* communications platform and their censorship policies should arguably be guarded against by more than corporate self-interest.
Someone who is not harmed lacks "standing" to bring a case in federal court, because the constitution requires there be an actual case or controversy--federal courts lack the power to issue advisory opinions. For a constitutionally protected interest, the plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury—an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent (that is, neither conjectural nor hypothetical; not abstract). The injury can be either economic, non-economic, or both.
The TSA is arguing the plaintiff can't bring the case because he hasn't been body-scanned. The plaintiff is arguing only the TSA knows whether they will body scan him and they haven't told the court, so you have to assume they will. The plaintiff also goes on about plaintiff's protected liberty interest in international travel, but that doesn't address the question of whether the harm to plaintiff is the kind of concrete, particularized, actual, and imminent harm necessary to give the plaintiff standing to sue. Unless a lot more of that was in the complaint, the judge isn't going to find it sufficient to issue the injunction.
There are some merits arguments too, but IRL judges care a LOT about standing. This does not prevent someone from filing another lawsuit in the future, and there may be some opportunity to further the argument in the main part of the lawsuit after the injunction fails to issue.
Prohibiting "behavior intended to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence another user's voice"? Does that include the hate speech against muslims that has become a part of the Trump campaign's effort to get votes? The hate speech against "the great Satan" you get out of some in the middle-east? The hate speech again Israel you get out of millions of people worldwide? The hate speech against Palestine you get out of Israel? The hate speech against ISIS you get out Paris in the wake of the terrorist attacks? The hate speech against Parisian Jews you get out of Parisian Muslims?
Isolationist, anti-foreigner Joe McCarthyism, Anti-Semitism, Donald-Trumpism, there is always someone trying to use fear and hate as part of a power grab in a country's domestic political narrative. Do we really want corporate leadership at Twitter to be in charge of deciding when that's okay and when it should be censored?
If the IRS says you owe more than $50,000 in unpaid taxes, the State department will revoke your passport. No judge, no evidence involved. Just a 'certification.'
We all know how much an IRS agent will be punished for 'mistakenly' certifying that someone who displeased the wrong politician will be punished: not at all. Essentially, your right to move freely can be arbitrarily revoked by the IRS- internationally by clear purpose of the statute, and internally (within the United States) in some cases.
(1) You can sue them to get such a travel ban lifted. Arbitrary and capricious action is not legally permitted to the IRS and federal judges don't look well on it. (2) You can probably also sue them for money in a 1983 suit.
SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
You are HEREBY COMMANDED TO APPEAR and bring with you the CONTENTS OF /dev/null
That's a very good example of why something like this can be done well and give people a richer understanding of computing, even if it's not that useful to most programmers.
When I did undergrad, the CS department was interested in getting more women in coding and found really two things: (1) if the intro course was taught by a woman, students were more likely to go into CS, and (2) women interested in taking CS courses were much more interested in taking them for utilitarian reasons, because those courses would be useful for them in another specialty.
And that second group--people who are not computer experts but who learn a lot of computing because it is a useful tech--is a massive group that should not be discounted. Those are the people a program like this can start to influence.
A nuclear weapon is an effective deterrent. Without them, you can be invaded or can be subject to total war, which is almost unthinkable if you have them. With them, invading you is a much, much bigger risk. The stockpile is too big--the sheer size creates a security nightmare--but you want at least some. Whether you need enough to make nuclear war unwinnable is a closer question.
Also, the world should probably always have a few, even if they're locked in a drawer somewhere. Because aliens.
Who gives a shit what foreigners think about the US. It's of no consequence.
Wrong. The U.S. does more than 4 TRILLION dollars a year of business with the rest of the world. Its scientists and schools collaborate with institutions around the world to advance the sum total of human knowledge, and its schools educate and shape the views of many members of the educated and ruling classes in countries around the world. It also has foreign policy interests that range from offering humanitarian relief after natural disasters and combating human trafficking to building coalitions against terrorist regimes that target it.
Just because it's of no immediate concern to you doesn't mean it's unimportant.
They'll be defending themselves from lawsuits within 3.
So what? They're safer than the average driver. Juries on average may prefer to side with the little guy, but what really convinces juries is showing them exactly what happened. The many, many tort cases about car accidents are all about whose story about how the accident occurred is correct.
Anyone defending a robotic car will be *really* good at showing exactly what happened in an accident. It's not just about witness statements any more.
We're already paying a lot of money because of lawsuits around cars. Insurance will ultimately be cheaper with robotic cars involved.
Ford is actually a decently managed company--maybe the only major US Automaker not to declare bankruptcy during the financial crisis.
I've never had an especially good experience with their cars. The last Ford I rented was so short inside that sitting down, the top of my head hit the ceiling. But their trucks are okay.
Either way, though, a self-driving car is a significant competitive advantage, and google has both experience and a lot of mindshare in the space.
Science is in the open, but I pin most of the reporting woes on reporters that really don't understand what they are reporting on. ... Anybody can be a science reporter. Anybody can call them-self a scientist as well.
That's how it seems if you've had science training but have never known any reporters. Reporting is a job. You only have a certain (small) amount of time to deal with a subject so you rely on someone else who knows it better. You know you don't understand it very well, certainly not compared to them, and you know you're filtering it for someone else, in a particular spoon-feeding way. You want to be accurate, you want to help a reader who knows less than you've learned from the expert to learn something from the expert, but you also really want to meet your deadline.
You only have half an hour to write it up. Or you only have a 30-second block between Donald Trump and Miley Cyrus. Because people who watch the news would rather have the sound byte to talk about than to understand the science, and if you talk about something in detail they'll change the channel and the news loses money.
And if a media outlet has a dedicated science reporter, you're very lucky--not anybody can be a science reporter, at least not for anyone reputable. There aren't a lot of science reporter jobs out there.
The reporters are workers in a given system. Blaming them for not fixing it is like blaming the guy who installs your cable for Comcast's business model.
Realistically, nerds (for the most part) shouldn't be getting their news from the reporters who report to the masses. That's a way for you to get news if you don't care about understanding stuff. Nerds want to understand stuff. We should get our news from panels of experts, from lectures by experts, or from studies and reports and abstracts of them.
A good expert panel is absolutely amazing and you learn more from it than you would from watching a year of news. Don't blame reporters for doing their job; realize you're not their target demographic, and encourage others to take their news from sources that favor a far more curious mind.
and all it takes is a nuke to really mess up the power gird.
Hackers are cheaper than nukes.
Someone must think that older middle age folks and young seniors are incapable of comprehending intellectual law and using technology.
No, they must think that older middle-age folks and young seniors violating IP laws for no commercial gain and with no violent crime indicated should not be called a "gang." Gang means street thugs (or organized crime with a network of street thugs) when you are talking about criminals.