In general, yes it is the last ditch attempt to keep the thing going, however so far it has proved far from futile for many title. Many have gotten quite successful with the F2P model.
This isn't the same. That was the state issuing the law. This is the Federal government. The problem before has always been a state attempting to tax interstate commerce, something they don't have the authority to do. The Federal government however does.
If you only have a handful of people, it may simply be that they have been taking the 'quick and dirty' approach to development for a while and just haven't had the initiative to change it. In such an environment I suspect a few suggestions for improvements would be met with interest, especially if you're willing to put the time in to implement such. Now, on the other hand, if you're talking a mid to large development crew, then I'd be worried. That speaks to some serious weakness in management that they are willing to cut corners behind the scenes. Still, again, it could simply be lack of initiative. If you speak up with some suggestions you could find them receptive to some change, especially if you can sell them on the improvements in productivity and such.
You can overbuild a house, it generally makes it stronger. You over code a piece of software it just adds to the number of possible points of failure. The two really aren't good analogies for each other. That doesn't even consider things like how maintenance of both is handled, interactions of hardware, varying setups, and just simple complexity.
Because engineering has some very well established science behind it, and on top of that you can overbuild to get around uncertainty. Seismology is worlds away from that level of certainty, and you're suppose to give accurate predictions so there is no equivalent to overbuilding.
Even if I tell you the risk of something is insignificant, that doesn't equate to zero, and that means it can still happen. So, I still don't see how they are not expecting actual prediction here when that is the only way to be sure.
Even if you assume you are 100% legally in the clear, they can still sue you, get your ISP to cut you off, and make your life generally miserable. Sadly being in the right doesn't mean someone else can't accuse you of being in the legal wrong and thus forcing you to prove otherwise.
I would think most the hacking community would be potentially great at the details, but pretty mediocre at setting the general policies and running the department. This is essentially an administrative position. While I'm sure there are hackers out there that can do both the grunt work and admin work, most just aren't.
If we assume both sides are sporting the same detection gear, with just the 1 side using this thermal invisible tech, and the opponent using portable controllable lights on poles, the problem then becomes that such a pole has to be deployed. That takes at minimum time, and quite likely someone (who has quite an obvious heat signature themselves) to get out in the open and go through all the deployment of such, or some mechanism on your vehicle to do such, increase the weight of said vehicle, reducing the weight you can allocated to armor or weapons (although it may just off set the weight of the thermal invisibility tech). Also, since you'd have to do this constantly, you'd either need a lot of lights, or would have to constantly back track to retrieve the lights you deployed that did not reveal anything. With mobility being so important now, I can't see this deployment overhead actually working out in practice, especially if you're the one attacking.
I might give that to you if Judges had any kind of formal training on how to combat subconscious biases, but they don't. They are trained in law, not psychology, and even psychological training isn't going to prepare you to combat such. Far too many judges get to preside with some very gross and obvious conscious biases let alone unconscious ones, so it isn't even close to the a good analogy you're using there. Will it matter ultimately, probably not, but it has pretty much nothing to do with his occupation whether it does or doesn't.
You do realize you can get PSN without giving them your credit card info since it is free, right? Heck, even if you want to buy something you don't have to give them your CC info, just need to buy PSN cards at the store.
...toss all cases like this to the curb with a thorough lecture of all parties who have the audacity to bring charges for this! This should have been denounced long ago as totally without merit and a gross abuse of the system.
You're right, it was a veiled threat... Sadly I can see that actual verbiage being seen as a threat. Predicting violence is the same kind of thing you hear out of your stereotypical mobster muscling a store owner for protection money. In a place like Egypt, making statements like that on the net is just asking for trouble.
Indeed you can't. However, this is a trademark dispute, different rules (although I still think it is the height of stupid as they don't own the trademark on 'Scrolls').
Unfortunately, said wasn't the case as he was active at the time.
As for a deletion review, we thankfully didn't need to go to that hassle. Point was that we should have had to in the first place. It is frustrating to the max, and most people aren't going to bother, they'll just leave.
What really disgusts me about the deletions is apparently, admins are more than willing to delete an article that didn't even come close to properly following the deletion rules: One of the articles I follow, which admittedly has issues, had a standard editor who obviously didn't know what he was doing, put up the deletion tag on the article. However, said editor did it improperly, making the discussion sound like it was not about deletion but simply about article improvement. There also was no deletion discussion page made up. A couple weeks pass, being a low priority article it generally gets ignored save the usual vandal edits, admin comes along, and deletes it. No comment as to why (which really makes me wonder if these guys even LOOK at the deletion discussions which in this case was non-existent). Okay, so various editors notice this, I in particular ask where was the discussion on the deletion I apparently missed. Finding there was none, and that the deletion was put up in error in the first place, we request some talk from said admin (politely too), and he ignores us for 2 weeks. Finally we had to go to a completely different admin who promptly restored the article. Thankfully some admins seem to do their job and I thank them, but ones like the first are far too common. I should mention said first admin I later found has been named on/. before for... less than upstanding deletion behavior, yet he's still there.
This doesn't solve the general case halting problem, only a specific subset of it. I could see this being useful in debugging phase of development, but not really for end users.
You can't cut spending that much either. Even if you totally zeroed all spending, it still wouldn't cover it. BUT, fortunately that's irrelevant. No one is expecting the whole accumulated debt to be paid down in one shot. They want to get ahead of the interest so that you can begin paying it down over time.
First, many times yes, dealing with depts does involve getting a second job, getting a temporary loan, seeking investors, etc. Beyond that, as I said typically all organizations don't have to deal with many of the issues governments do on the spending side. Governments have inflexible spending requirements that a household, or for that matter other organizations, don't. If a company wants to close 10 factories to cut costs, they can. If a government wants to cut 10 divisions of the military, they most often can't (particularly because a good chunk of the legislators won't allow it). As such I stand by what I said, you can't simply say "no new taxes" and expect to enforce a balanced budget. It is ludicrous to expect it to work. You can argue every tax hike attempted, but just laying that up front as a condition is a non-starter for any government.
How can Republicans hold to the position: "We must have a balanced budget", which by itself is perfectly fine, then add to that, "but we won't let you increase your income"? These 2 principles do NOT go together. If you remove 1 of only 2 fundamental tools to achieving a balanced budget from the table, then it beyond ridiculous to expect a balance budget be enforced this way. This is even more true of a government than it is to a household, as governments typically have some very inflexible spending requirements.
The summary is pretty poor (as usual). The article says 'The revised Penal Code, which was enforced July 14, bans storage of a computer virus for the purpose of infecting other computers.' I doubt Symantec or McAfee store for the purpose of infecting other computers.
So your argument is that you are illiterate and ignorant? Why not read the law yourself and form an opinion?
Yeah, that's real mature, start immediately with personal attacks. Unless you are a judge, and have decided the case, with the full set of facts, I'll just have to stick to what I said (and even if you are, well you're not impressing me with your level of reasoning). If you want to actually debate me, at least try to keep it civil.
Slashdot Mirror
...the guy that called the cops to help him break into a bank.
In general, yes it is the last ditch attempt to keep the thing going, however so far it has proved far from futile for many title. Many have gotten quite successful with the F2P model.
This isn't the same. That was the state issuing the law. This is the Federal government. The problem before has always been a state attempting to tax interstate commerce, something they don't have the authority to do. The Federal government however does.
If you only have a handful of people, it may simply be that they have been taking the 'quick and dirty' approach to development for a while and just haven't had the initiative to change it. In such an environment I suspect a few suggestions for improvements would be met with interest, especially if you're willing to put the time in to implement such. Now, on the other hand, if you're talking a mid to large development crew, then I'd be worried. That speaks to some serious weakness in management that they are willing to cut corners behind the scenes. Still, again, it could simply be lack of initiative. If you speak up with some suggestions you could find them receptive to some change, especially if you can sell them on the improvements in productivity and such.
You can overbuild a house, it generally makes it stronger. You over code a piece of software it just adds to the number of possible points of failure. The two really aren't good analogies for each other. That doesn't even consider things like how maintenance of both is handled, interactions of hardware, varying setups, and just simple complexity.
Because engineering has some very well established science behind it, and on top of that you can overbuild to get around uncertainty. Seismology is worlds away from that level of certainty, and you're suppose to give accurate predictions so there is no equivalent to overbuilding.
Yeah, pretty much. And a precedent like this could easily begin affecting other areas too. Look out weathermen, you're next.
Even if I tell you the risk of something is insignificant, that doesn't equate to zero, and that means it can still happen. So, I still don't see how they are not expecting actual prediction here when that is the only way to be sure.
Even if you assume you are 100% legally in the clear, they can still sue you, get your ISP to cut you off, and make your life generally miserable. Sadly being in the right doesn't mean someone else can't accuse you of being in the legal wrong and thus forcing you to prove otherwise.
I would think most the hacking community would be potentially great at the details, but pretty mediocre at setting the general policies and running the department. This is essentially an administrative position. While I'm sure there are hackers out there that can do both the grunt work and admin work, most just aren't.
If we assume both sides are sporting the same detection gear, with just the 1 side using this thermal invisible tech, and the opponent using portable controllable lights on poles, the problem then becomes that such a pole has to be deployed. That takes at minimum time, and quite likely someone (who has quite an obvious heat signature themselves) to get out in the open and go through all the deployment of such, or some mechanism on your vehicle to do such, increase the weight of said vehicle, reducing the weight you can allocated to armor or weapons (although it may just off set the weight of the thermal invisibility tech). Also, since you'd have to do this constantly, you'd either need a lot of lights, or would have to constantly back track to retrieve the lights you deployed that did not reveal anything. With mobility being so important now, I can't see this deployment overhead actually working out in practice, especially if you're the one attacking.
I might give that to you if Judges had any kind of formal training on how to combat subconscious biases, but they don't. They are trained in law, not psychology, and even psychological training isn't going to prepare you to combat such. Far too many judges get to preside with some very gross and obvious conscious biases let alone unconscious ones, so it isn't even close to the a good analogy you're using there. Will it matter ultimately, probably not, but it has pretty much nothing to do with his occupation whether it does or doesn't.
Being a judge doesn't magically make a person immune to subconscious bias.
You do realize you can get PSN without giving them your credit card info since it is free, right? Heck, even if you want to buy something you don't have to give them your CC info, just need to buy PSN cards at the store.
...toss all cases like this to the curb with a thorough lecture of all parties who have the audacity to bring charges for this! This should have been denounced long ago as totally without merit and a gross abuse of the system.
You're right, it was a veiled threat... Sadly I can see that actual verbiage being seen as a threat. Predicting violence is the same kind of thing you hear out of your stereotypical mobster muscling a store owner for protection money. In a place like Egypt, making statements like that on the net is just asking for trouble.
Indeed you can't. However, this is a trademark dispute, different rules (although I still think it is the height of stupid as they don't own the trademark on 'Scrolls').
In Wikipedia culture, taking a break from editing altogether isn't considered ignoring.
Unfortunately, said wasn't the case as he was active at the time.
As for a deletion review, we thankfully didn't need to go to that hassle. Point was that we should have had to in the first place. It is frustrating to the max, and most people aren't going to bother, they'll just leave.
What really disgusts me about the deletions is apparently, admins are more than willing to delete an article that didn't even come close to properly following the deletion rules: One of the articles I follow, which admittedly has issues, had a standard editor who obviously didn't know what he was doing, put up the deletion tag on the article. However, said editor did it improperly, making the discussion sound like it was not about deletion but simply about article improvement. There also was no deletion discussion page made up. A couple weeks pass, being a low priority article it generally gets ignored save the usual vandal edits, admin comes along, and deletes it. No comment as to why (which really makes me wonder if these guys even LOOK at the deletion discussions which in this case was non-existent). Okay, so various editors notice this, I in particular ask where was the discussion on the deletion I apparently missed. Finding there was none, and that the deletion was put up in error in the first place, we request some talk from said admin (politely too), and he ignores us for 2 weeks. Finally we had to go to a completely different admin who promptly restored the article. Thankfully some admins seem to do their job and I thank them, but ones like the first are far too common. I should mention said first admin I later found has been named on /. before for... less than upstanding deletion behavior, yet he's still there.
This doesn't solve the general case halting problem, only a specific subset of it. I could see this being useful in debugging phase of development, but not really for end users.
You can't cut spending that much either. Even if you totally zeroed all spending, it still wouldn't cover it. BUT, fortunately that's irrelevant. No one is expecting the whole accumulated debt to be paid down in one shot. They want to get ahead of the interest so that you can begin paying it down over time.
First, many times yes, dealing with depts does involve getting a second job, getting a temporary loan, seeking investors, etc. Beyond that, as I said typically all organizations don't have to deal with many of the issues governments do on the spending side. Governments have inflexible spending requirements that a household, or for that matter other organizations, don't. If a company wants to close 10 factories to cut costs, they can. If a government wants to cut 10 divisions of the military, they most often can't (particularly because a good chunk of the legislators won't allow it). As such I stand by what I said, you can't simply say "no new taxes" and expect to enforce a balanced budget. It is ludicrous to expect it to work. You can argue every tax hike attempted, but just laying that up front as a condition is a non-starter for any government.
How can Republicans hold to the position: "We must have a balanced budget", which by itself is perfectly fine, then add to that, "but we won't let you increase your income"? These 2 principles do NOT go together. If you remove 1 of only 2 fundamental tools to achieving a balanced budget from the table, then it beyond ridiculous to expect a balance budget be enforced this way. This is even more true of a government than it is to a household, as governments typically have some very inflexible spending requirements.
The summary is pretty poor (as usual). The article says 'The revised Penal Code, which was enforced July 14, bans storage of a computer virus for the purpose of infecting other computers.' I doubt Symantec or McAfee store for the purpose of infecting other computers.
So your argument is that you are illiterate and ignorant? Why not read the law yourself and form an opinion?
Yeah, that's real mature, start immediately with personal attacks. Unless you are a judge, and have decided the case, with the full set of facts, I'll just have to stick to what I said (and even if you are, well you're not impressing me with your level of reasoning). If you want to actually debate me, at least try to keep it civil.