Watch this: Microsoft. I just said a trademarked brand name, and yet no laws have been violated.
You can't trademark someone's name unless actively being used in commerce, and only for a specific field. Further, they weren't claiming to be Tolkien, they were simply referencing him, which is completely legal in nearly all circumstances, trademarks be damned.
Report was done by a company called "AIM Group". Go ahead and click through to the site. Check the sponsors box on the right. Notice anything? (In case you didn't click through or have ad-blocking software, I'm referring to the eBay and Kijiji ads.)
Not to mention that they say right in the study that it was commissioned by a Craigslist competitor, Oodle. So they're being paid both directly and indirectly by competitors to Craigslist. Is any of this mentioned in the coverage of the study? Not a chance.
It's a smear paper in its finest and nothing else, especially not a "study".
It's a very, very weak contract. The employer in this case has not explicitly agreed to anything. It's very likely a court would find it non-binding if you didn't actually have a Facebook account since there would be next to no consideration on Facebook's part.
My thinking exactly. Anyone who writes in PHP probably is using it because it's the easiest option..
Not this shit again. I work on a gigantic, mostly object-oriented HR application daily. It handles thousands of employees using our custom-built punchclock, as well as ambulance dispatch services, scheduling, internal mail, payroll calculation (we leave the actual payroll processing to another app), and a million other mission-critical business functions. We separate business logic and design using Smarty templates, and try to make it a point not to duplicate any code. Copy and pasted code generally doesn't show up because the functions the app handles are too complicated for most "tutorial" sites to work with. I comment my code extensively, and use phpDoc (yes, that's a thing, gasp) comments on classes and functions. Everything is in a Subversion repository with an automatically updated test app installation (though I tend to test locally).
And it's all PHP.
Yes, PHP is easy to pick up, but at this level of coding we consider all the same issues that high-level developers using other languages do (and I have coded in quite a few others, including Java, C, C++, Python...). And it works. Very well.
In any case, as my sibling comments have pointed out, the article is talking about Git commits, not comments, so your whole point is invalidated to begin with.
If you're going to badmouth PHP, pick something specific, and not "teh devs r stoopid lol".
And for the matter I'd imagine the ads on Slashdot are quite lucrative to a company wanting to reach our niche, so they probably pull a profit on their own.
I think most juries would see that as meeting both standards (if the devices were in correct synchronization and they couldn't show that someone else updated the Facebook page).
If it's stored in a completely different type of memory, the always-crypto delete-the-key approach might work, but if it's actually on the SSD itself, it falls apart. You said yourself that the key is likely stored in two locations in case one fails; in that case, wouldn't at least part of the key be recoverable on the fails portion of the disk since it may refuse to write to that block, since it considers it damaged?
I love that they keep trying to bring this up. It's their Pinky and the Brain-style take over the world plan. The TCPA FAQ, while somewhat old by now, is still relevant (and shows just how long they've been trying this).
Also (and I don't care if it's OT, my karma is nigh invincible), whose idea was it to make the italics HTML tag not italicize? I mean, there's "standards compliance" and then there's anal retentive BS. Guess which one defines this.
I said they should be open, I didn't say free. That said, I don't think the usage fees should price out local ISPs, or have an exclusive deal with one provider. I'd fund them with a blend of both taxes and usage fees.
Yes, I said it, taxes. They do pay for stuff, you know. That's why they're there.
It's simple: If the government is paying for the lines, they should be open to anyone who can present a valid business plan to use them. Chances of this being true approach zero.
Of course it's "within five years." Politicians love making grandiose statements about what we should have while conveniently putting the deadline beyond their term limits.
I'm not saying that universal internet coverage would be a bad thing, but this seems like a purely political move to me. It sounds nice and it promises nothing that can be held to him.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm guessing they quickly got some very loud "feedback" from the cellular providers.
Head north. History should have told you that one.
Shakespeare. ...Wait, what were we doing again?
Watch this: Microsoft. I just said a trademarked brand name, and yet no laws have been violated.
You can't trademark someone's name unless actively being used in commerce, and only for a specific field. Further, they weren't claiming to be Tolkien, they were simply referencing him, which is completely legal in nearly all circumstances, trademarks be damned.
I think eBay's stake in Craigslist is defensive at best; they do after all own a direct competitor.
Report was done by a company called "AIM Group". Go ahead and click through to the site. Check the sponsors box on the right. Notice anything? (In case you didn't click through or have ad-blocking software, I'm referring to the eBay and Kijiji ads.)
Not to mention that they say right in the study that it was commissioned by a Craigslist competitor, Oodle. So they're being paid both directly and indirectly by competitors to Craigslist. Is any of this mentioned in the coverage of the study? Not a chance.
It's a smear paper in its finest and nothing else, especially not a "study".
It's a very, very weak contract. The employer in this case has not explicitly agreed to anything. It's very likely a court would find it non-binding if you didn't actually have a Facebook account since there would be next to no consideration on Facebook's part.
... but then again I've yet to meet a PHP dev that actually uses a VCS ;)
*waves*
My thinking exactly. Anyone who writes in PHP probably is using it because it's the easiest option..
Not this shit again. I work on a gigantic, mostly object-oriented HR application daily. It handles thousands of employees using our custom-built punchclock, as well as ambulance dispatch services, scheduling, internal mail, payroll calculation (we leave the actual payroll processing to another app), and a million other mission-critical business functions. We separate business logic and design using Smarty templates, and try to make it a point not to duplicate any code. Copy and pasted code generally doesn't show up because the functions the app handles are too complicated for most "tutorial" sites to work with. I comment my code extensively, and use phpDoc (yes, that's a thing, gasp) comments on classes and functions. Everything is in a Subversion repository with an automatically updated test app installation (though I tend to test locally).
And it's all PHP.
Yes, PHP is easy to pick up, but at this level of coding we consider all the same issues that high-level developers using other languages do (and I have coded in quite a few others, including Java, C, C++, Python...). And it works. Very well.
In any case, as my sibling comments have pointed out, the article is talking about Git commits, not comments, so your whole point is invalidated to begin with.
If you're going to badmouth PHP, pick something specific, and not "teh devs r stoopid lol".
You're exactly right on popular != profitable. Has 4chan ever made a profit? Or for that matter, does slashdot? (ducks for cover)
Slashdot a.k.a. Geeknet a.k.a. Thinkgeek? Yeah.
And for the matter I'd imagine the ads on Slashdot are quite lucrative to a company wanting to reach our niche, so they probably pull a profit on their own.
Yeah, there have been a bunch of keyholes installed in the Fourth Amendment for easy government access. Even the "Communist" one still gets some use.
I think most juries would see that as meeting both standards (if the devices were in correct synchronization and they couldn't show that someone else updated the Facebook page).
That's the point; once they drop / lose / destroy them, administrators can respond that it requires an under-the-skin implant.
...are apparently thrown out the window when the magic word "Internet" starts getting used.
If it's stored in a completely different type of memory, the always-crypto delete-the-key approach might work, but if it's actually on the SSD itself, it falls apart. You said yourself that the key is likely stored in two locations in case one fails; in that case, wouldn't at least part of the key be recoverable on the fails portion of the disk since it may refuse to write to that block, since it considers it damaged?
If TFA is correct and you can't reliably erase data from the disk, how are you going to reliably erase the key?
It wasn't a hoax, and they were bought off / silenced.
I love that they keep trying to bring this up. It's their Pinky and the Brain-style take over the world plan. The TCPA FAQ, while somewhat old by now, is still relevant (and shows just how long they've been trying this).
Unfortunately you'll find neither major party willing to say that because they're all in the pocket of defense contractors.
Like most things, third parties and independents are the answer, but the major parties have convinced Americans that they're helpless.
I think that's the point; it makes publishers consider the Apple tax as a business expense so they start accepting it as necessary.
Also (and I don't care if it's OT, my karma is nigh invincible), whose idea was it to make the italics HTML tag not italicize? I mean, there's "standards compliance" and then there's anal retentive BS. Guess which one defines this.
"Asking questions" is how he can slander and libel without being sued.
I strongly recommend watching the South Park episode Dances with Smurfs for a pretty accurate (and lulzy) overview.
I said they should be open, I didn't say free. That said, I don't think the usage fees should price out local ISPs, or have an exclusive deal with one provider. I'd fund them with a blend of both taxes and usage fees.
Yes, I said it, taxes. They do pay for stuff, you know. That's why they're there.
It's simple: If the government is paying for the lines, they should be open to anyone who can present a valid business plan to use them. Chances of this being true approach zero.
Of course it's "within five years." Politicians love making grandiose statements about what we should have while conveniently putting the deadline beyond their term limits.
I'm not saying that universal internet coverage would be a bad thing, but this seems like a purely political move to me. It sounds nice and it promises nothing that can be held to him.