If the company is way behind on your paychecks, and it doesn't look like that's gonna get fixed anytime soon, and you've got something better to do, I think you're making a reasonable call to cut your losses and walk. It's nice, I guess to leave things all neat and organized for your more optimistic coworkers.
The next thing you know they will be banning Bambi.
They just might. Bambi is pretty violent.
An excerpt from the English translation, where the Old Stag is showing Bambi that Man is not all-powerful:
He was lying with His pale, naked face turned upwards, His hat a little to one side on the snow. Bambi who did not know anything about hats, thought His horrible head was split in two. The poacher's shirt, open at the neck, was pierced where a wound gaped like a small red mouth. Blood was oozing out slowly. Blood was drying on His hair and around His nose. A big pool of it lay on the snow withc was melting from the warmth.
"We can stand right beside Him," the old stag began softly, "and it isn't dangerous."
Bambi looked down at the prostrate form whose limbs and skin seemed so mysterious and terrible to him. He gazed at the dead eyes that stared up sightlessly at him. Bambi couldn't understand it all.
TFA's a little short on detail, but why are they blocking violent content in the first place? I assume they have some reason to do so. And if that's the case, should it matter how old or famous the unacceptably violent work is?
Bottom line: if Hamlet fits their definition of inappropriate content, should they make explicit exceptions for particularly famous and important works, or should they evaluate the overall filtering/blocking objectives and rationale as well as the mechanisms and algorithms implementing those restrictions?
Everyone's already noticed that this is just an acoustically coupled modem setup. But this is better. Put the receiver of one by the speaker of the other and vice-versa. Now you've got two phones literally coupling, like 69, soixante-neuf, right there on the table at Starbucks.
There was quite a lot of bizarre technology pursued/developed in the cold war for communications, among other things. A similar system was meteor burst communications. The idea was you'd bounce your radio signal off the ionization trail of a meteor for the brief time it existed then wait for the next and so on. This way you could communicate way beyond the normal horizon without satellites, ground repeaters, etc. Unlike many crazy Cold War ideas, it was successful and is still used for military, civilian and amateur purposes.
The case is linked to one of the government's most prolific official tweeters, Immigration Department spokesman Sandi Logan, who heads the communications team in which Ms Banerji worked.
There is a danger when you work for a boss who's angry at the world because his parents gave him a girl's name.
It's not a security problem in the sense that people knowing about it won't be able to exploit it. In other words, public knowledge of the problem won't hurt security any more than it already has been, which is what the earlier post was talking about.
First, I do understand your point regarding the common usage of "security" in this domain. However, the term "security" can also mean "safety," although in English "security" is more commonly used to freedom or protection from malicious harm or loss and "safety" is commonly taken to mean protection from accident or nature. (Paging pedants to show just how stupid and wrong I am.) Moreover, in some languages, the English words "safety" and "security" translate the same.
Did this tool try to notify Xerox first or did he just start shouting from the mountain tops?
It isn't a security issue so the only purpose served by his going public without him contacting Xerox is to stroke his ego.
How would any of you like it if someone found a bug in your stuff and instead of notifying you, went to your managers and bad mouthed you?
You'd think he was a prick.
Why does he owe this courtesy to Xerox? Xerox isn't his coworker, Xerox doesn't have feelings. Xerox is a corporation. And corporations don't always fix problems, even serious ones, until they receive wider attention.
So should he have quietly alerted Xerox, then monitored their progress in fixing the problem, keeping the company apprised of how it was doing -- sort of an unpaid QA position? I guess that's an option, but not the only acceptable one.
In short, Western countries almost universally have been adopting the opposite, to the part where Whites will be a minority in America in just a few years (TX and CA already), crime will be rampant, and non-whites will be outbreeding us by 2-5:1.
I think you were looking for Stormfront. It's way down there on the right. No, further right. There you go. Hoods right inside the door.
It's not that we're oppressed and chicken, it's just that we just got these really cool cellphones. Seriously, dude, there's a "how high can I throw my phone" app. I'm thinking revolution might slow down my upgrade cycle, not to mention 4G buildout.
You slam him, yet neglect to mention you'd be there with him asking him to pass the bag of Cheetos. Hell, I'd probably be there too. If you think you have no ego, you have a very big ego.
All of you guys can share my Cheetos when you sign my cold, dead online petition. That'll show 'em.
Smug nerds who give a greater damn about the fashionable parts of the Constitution, such as the second amendment, and look at you like you are crazy when you mention the others
FTFY
This just in: different people tend to care more about the stuff that they feel is important. Film at eleven.
It would be a win-win. That is to say a "win" for whoever does the attacking, and a "win" for the national security/defense/spying establishment. Maybe not as profitable for everyone as 9/11, but still not bad for a day's work.
Seems a little dangerous for that algorithm to be the default, doesn't it? Plus, burying the warning deep in the documentation.
And an insufficient warning, at that.
Something more like:
Normal/Small Mode may not be suitable for documents where faithful reproduction of the original text, numbers or illustrations is critical. Examples would include legal documents (contracts, wills, articles of incorporation, etc.), medical documents (patient charts, orders, medication lists, etc.), financial documents (bills, invoices, statements, reconciliations, etc.), business documents (HR records, meeting minutes, memoranda, etc.), engineering documents (drawings, plans, change orders, instructions, bills of material, etc.) or any other document where incorrect data could result in financial loss, injury, death, property damage or destruction, legal liability, loss of reputation or other harm. These examples should not be considered an exhaustive list of documents not suited for scanning, copying or faxing using Normal/Small mode.
Very interesting find, although that warning only appears in the "Fax" section of the manual, and not in the "Copy" or "Workflow Scanning" sections.
AND I'd be wrong, it's in all three sections. Ctrl-F'ing in Ocular only finds "character substitution" when the words are side-by-side, not split by a line break as they appear in the copying and scanning sections.
That's way worse. Xerox knows about this, and just puts in a little note, rather than a big old: "WARNING: Normal/Small mode may produce undetectable text errors."
And that type of warning should be defined in the beginning of the manual as "operations that may cause data transcription errors resulting in financial harm, damage to property, injury or death".
Quote: "Normal/Small produces small files by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is acceptable but some quality degradation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals"
Slashdot Mirror
So is he going to respond by firing some rockets at them?
WTF? Zuck's got a private army now? Maybe he got some Predators as a thank-you gift from the NSA.
Like what? Change the laws that they aren't obeying so they disobey even more?
That's...brilliant.
They usually do the opposite.
. . . my guess was it was because of the "leg" in "lego".
I guess polite people build things with "limbo".
If the company is way behind on your paychecks, and it doesn't look like that's gonna get fixed anytime soon, and you've got something better to do, I think you're making a reasonable call to cut your losses and walk. It's nice, I guess to leave things all neat and organized for your more optimistic coworkers.
but why are they blocking violent content in the first place?
They don't want you to read the world news.
As if the local news isn't bad enough most days.
Not as old as, e.g. Lysistrata, which has, to my knowledge the oldest surviving example of the "is that a lance under your cloak . . ." gag.
The next thing you know they will be banning Bambi.
They just might. Bambi is pretty violent.
An excerpt from the English translation, where the Old Stag is showing Bambi that Man is not all-powerful:
He was lying with His pale, naked face turned upwards, His hat a little to one side on the snow. Bambi who did not know anything about hats, thought His horrible head was split in two. The poacher's shirt, open at the neck, was pierced where a wound gaped like a small red mouth. Blood was oozing out slowly. Blood was drying on His hair and around His nose. A big pool of it lay on the snow withc was melting from the warmth.
"We can stand right beside Him," the old stag began softly, "and it isn't dangerous."
Bambi looked down at the prostrate form whose limbs and skin seemed so mysterious and terrible to him. He gazed at the dead eyes that stared up sightlessly at him. Bambi couldn't understand it all.
TFA's a little short on detail, but why are they blocking violent content in the first place? I assume they have some reason to do so. And if that's the case, should it matter how old or famous the unacceptably violent work is?
Bottom line: if Hamlet fits their definition of inappropriate content, should they make explicit exceptions for particularly famous and important works, or should they evaluate the overall filtering/blocking objectives and rationale as well as the mechanisms and algorithms implementing those restrictions?
Everyone's already noticed that this is just an acoustically coupled modem setup. But this is better. Put the receiver of one by the speaker of the other and vice-versa. Now you've got two phones literally coupling, like 69, soixante-neuf, right there on the table at Starbucks.
There was quite a lot of bizarre technology pursued/developed in the cold war for communications, among other things. A similar system was meteor burst communications. The idea was you'd bounce your radio signal off the ionization trail of a meteor for the brief time it existed then wait for the next and so on. This way you could communicate way beyond the normal horizon without satellites, ground repeaters, etc. Unlike many crazy Cold War ideas, it was successful and is still used for military, civilian and amateur purposes.
The case is linked to one of the government's most prolific official tweeters, Immigration Department spokesman Sandi Logan, who heads the communications team in which Ms Banerji worked.
There is a danger when you work for a boss who's angry at the world because his parents gave him a girl's name.
It's not a security problem in the sense that people knowing about it won't be able to exploit it. In other words, public knowledge of the problem won't hurt security any more than it already has been, which is what the earlier post was talking about.
First, I do understand your point regarding the common usage of "security" in this domain. However, the term "security" can also mean "safety," although in English "security" is more commonly used to freedom or protection from malicious harm or loss and "safety" is commonly taken to mean protection from accident or nature. (Paging pedants to show just how stupid and wrong I am.) Moreover, in some languages, the English words "safety" and "security" translate the same.
Did this tool try to notify Xerox first or did he just start shouting from the mountain tops?
It isn't a security issue so the only purpose served by his going public without him contacting Xerox is to stroke his ego.
How would any of you like it if someone found a bug in your stuff and instead of notifying you, went to your managers and bad mouthed you?
You'd think he was a prick.
Why does he owe this courtesy to Xerox? Xerox isn't his coworker, Xerox doesn't have feelings. Xerox is a corporation. And corporations don't always fix problems, even serious ones, until they receive wider attention.
So should he have quietly alerted Xerox, then monitored their progress in fixing the problem, keeping the company apprised of how it was doing -- sort of an unpaid QA position? I guess that's an option, but not the only acceptable one.
In short, Western countries almost universally have been adopting the opposite, to the part where Whites will be a minority in America in just a few years (TX and CA already), crime will be rampant, and non-whites will be outbreeding us by 2-5:1.
I think you were looking for Stormfront. It's way down there on the right. No, further right. There you go. Hoods right inside the door.
home of the imprisoned, land of the cowards?
It's not that we're oppressed and chicken, it's just that we just got these really cool cellphones. Seriously, dude, there's a "how high can I throw my phone" app. I'm thinking revolution might slow down my upgrade cycle, not to mention 4G buildout.
You slam him, yet neglect to mention you'd be there with him asking him to pass the bag of Cheetos. Hell, I'd probably be there too. If you think you have no ego, you have a very big ego.
All of you guys can share my Cheetos when you sign my cold, dead online petition. That'll show 'em.
I am not seeing your point.
I think he was just citing another example . . .
Hayden sounds like he could use some Viagra and a hooker (or whatever he's into).
Might take the edge off, and he could come up with a reasoned argument instead of just using the Wikipedia entry on logical fallacies as a checklist.
Smug nerds who give a greater damn about the fashionable parts of the Constitution, such as the second amendment, and look at you like you are crazy when you mention the others
FTFY
This just in: different people tend to care more about the stuff that they feel is important. Film at eleven.
He's trying to provoke an attack, isn't he?
It would be a win-win. That is to say a "win" for whoever does the attacking, and a "win" for the national security/defense/spying establishment. Maybe not as profitable for everyone as 9/11, but still not bad for a day's work.
Came here to post this. Maemo did it first!
I think 4 ft -- over a queen size mattress -- was as high as I ever dared, even with the Otterbox on my N900.
Seems a little dangerous for that algorithm to be the default, doesn't it? Plus, burying the warning deep in the documentation.
And an insufficient warning, at that.
Something more like:
Normal/Small Mode may not be suitable for documents where faithful reproduction of the original text, numbers or illustrations is critical. Examples would include legal documents (contracts, wills, articles of incorporation, etc.), medical documents (patient charts, orders, medication lists, etc.), financial documents (bills, invoices, statements, reconciliations, etc.), business documents (HR records, meeting minutes, memoranda, etc.), engineering documents (drawings, plans, change orders, instructions, bills of material, etc.) or any other document where incorrect data could result in financial loss, injury, death, property damage or destruction, legal liability, loss of reputation or other harm. These examples should not be considered an exhaustive list of documents not suited for scanning, copying or faxing using Normal/Small mode.
would be more appropriate.
So you're telling us this is a problem caused by a user not RTFMing and Slashdot sensationalized it?
Surely you're joking. :P
I admit that I, for one, don't usually RTFM before using the copier. Certainly not when I'm using the copier in "Normal" mode.
And don't call me "Shirley".
Very interesting find, although that warning only appears in the "Fax" section of the manual, and not in the "Copy" or "Workflow Scanning" sections.
AND I'd be wrong, it's in all three sections. Ctrl-F'ing in Ocular only finds "character substitution" when the words are side-by-side, not split by a line break as they appear in the copying and scanning sections.
That's way worse. Xerox knows about this, and just puts in a little note, rather than a big old: "WARNING: Normal/Small mode may produce undetectable text errors."
And that type of warning should be defined in the beginning of the manual as "operations that may cause data transcription errors resulting in financial harm, damage to property, injury or death".
Quote: "Normal/Small produces small files by using advanced compression techniques. Image quality is acceptable but some quality degradation and character substitution errors may occur with some originals"
Source: http://www.cs.unc.edu/cms/help/help-articles/files/xerox-copier-user-guide.pdf
Very interesting find, although that warning only appears in the "Fax" section of the manual, and not in the "Copy" or "Workflow Scanning" sections.