"Authentic" is an actual jersey that could be worn in a game (has all of the straps and stitching, a little more durable, larger to compensate for pads, etc). Replicas are just hockey sweaters that look like jerseys.
Glad to see you buy the illusion. However, they need to actually get on the ballot in enough states to get elected (a nightmare in itself - last presidential election, I had R, D, Green, and Libertarian). On top of that, you have Rs and Ds running as third party based solely on the fact they cannot get nominated in their own party. Again, last presidential election, the Libertarian was a Republican (Barr), and Green was a Democrat (McKinney).
So where's my 3rd party option? My ballot choices last year was a Republican, a Republican as "third party," a Democrat, and a Democrat as "third party."
So, your against copyright law abuses, unless those abuses are done in a way that fall in line with your political beliefs, then it's okay? Sounds like you are part of the problem.
You might want to try a better approach, like setting your terminal's prompt variable to something useful. That way, you can see who is logged in where right on your command line. Arbitrarily setting a background image after connecting seems like it won't solve the issue of typing the wrong commands in. Whose to say you don't change server2 to a different image on a whim, and just type in the wrong command again mistaking it for server1? It'd be easier to glance to the left on me current line and see something like:
[joe@server2/etc]$
That tells me who I'm logged on as, what server I'm on, where I'm at, and whether or not I have root privileges.
Oh, don't get me started on file sent it from clients. I've received a chunk of data to import into a database... in a photoshop file (and it wasn't a text layer).
Needless to say, I sent that one back and asked for a different file format.
Oh, I do assume that the impossible happens quite a bit (I've seen enough "that shouldn't be possible" problems). I had told the end user that might be what's happening, or that the recipient forwarded it to a home address shared among the family. They didn't believe me, swore it was the system doing all of this (and instructed me to fix it).
...and they'll just make a better idiot. Two gems I've gotten over the years are:
"I can't log in when I type in my password! It's broken!" - The problem? They weren't typing in their username, they were only typing in their password.
My all time favorite was a customer who was very unhappy with an application we had created for them to send out event invitations and what not. I get an angry e-mail passed to me. The claim: "Whenever I type in someone's e-mail address, instead of e-mailing that person, the system figures out who their spouses and children are, and sends them the notification instead!" I had to repeatedly confirm that what they're describing is not possible. Even then, the person still angrily refused to believe me. If I were to create software that somehow psychically figure out all of that information, I'd be very rich, and probably be working for the government.
What's ridiculous is that Google only put it in small text on their homepage
That, and the giant black box over their name. Honestly, the Google link seems to be getting passed around people on Facebook like wildfire. And I'm loving it because the people I'm seeing spread it around are not my nerd friends, but the "average joes" who don't keep up on tech rights and such. Google's approach may not be as drastic as others, but it's definitely getting attention.
Excuse my incredulity, but is this attitude really helping? You are continuing to promulgate the idea that women need the help of men to survive -- like it's YOUR job to step in and say "enough."
Honestly, that's actually a somewhat sexist idea in itself. You seem to think that a community standing up against a vile actions by a few people is "defending a woman because she needs my help" mentality instead of a community showing that it doesn't tolerate that behavior among its members. I prefer to think it's the latter.
I'm guessing they'll just wait until post-election sessions to resurrect it and push it through. At that point, they won't care about their public image will be for another 2, 4, or 6 years.
49 out of 50 times, you're correct. However, this bill started receiving coverage in national news outlets, and not just tech-related ones. Granted, some of what was covered wasn't quite accurate, but at least it was getting some national media coverage on the "this is bad" side of things.
And the very critical part of the story which takes the wind out of the whole "overcoming her drastic odds" part is she wasn't homeless 13 days ago. She and her family were evicted on Jan 1st, 2012.
Of course, that doesn't make for a good human interest story, most news outlets initially failed to mention that fact.
I also imagine that would also make their respective lawyers sweat quite a bit. I would like to see that happen just to get the word out and hopefully make the average person give a damn, but that would also be directly going against the powers that be in Congress. Suddenly, your company may end up under a microscope of some government committee for whatever reason.
Google's already been hinted at for anti-trust/privacy violations, Facebook scrutinized over their privacy... This move, while fully supported by us, would probably move that "hinted at" into "full-on investigation" territory. It's one of those "your company is fully within its rights doing that, but we're going to make your existence much more complicated and painful" situations.
Huntsman doesn't come off as a rank-and-file Republican, and has some logical stances (for a conservative) on some issues. He also doesn't take a strictly partisan stance on everything, which is sorely, sorely needed in our government. However, since he appears more moderate than the rest of the field, he'll never make it out of the primary process.
I haven't taken a very scrutinizing look at Huntsman, but he seemed like the best choice to me from the field of candidates. Paul has some good ideas, but he's way too idealistic in some of his views, almost to the point of naivety.
There is no sidewalks at the particular stoplight (nor any pedestrian traffic) where my BS camera tickets are handed out, it's in an unincorporated area between two towns. The intersection itself could use the camera (it's notorious for the light being ran), but the majority of the tickets are for right turn without stops.
In all honestly, a right turn arrow would solve the issue entirely, but that's bad for town's revenue...
They're not reviled, we just hate when they're abused. Most people I know who've gotten red light tickets via a camera got one due to turning right on a red light at a very specific T-intersection in my area. The only possibly way the right-turners would pose a threat is if a car pulled a 180 turn and drove back into them. It's become quite a notorious intersection for the "bullshit camera" tickets (their phrase, not mine).
I also know of at least one red light camera that was removed specifically because it had increased accidents at the intersection where it is was installed. It had the usual shortened yellow, but it was on a downhill slope. The combination of the slightest inclement weather and overreaction to the yellow resulted in many cars losing traction and skidding downhill, straight into the intersection. They had slowed just enough for the light to complete the change, but had no control of their vehicle when they got to the intersection.
I'm actually in favor of red light cameras where they're needed (we do have some pretty bad intersections around here that need them), but there are others that are installed purely for monetary reasons (disregarding safety).
So they steal the data without connecting the laptop to a network. Or perhaps they plug into their network and use their firewall to only permit the specific traffic they want. Or they use some compromised machine as a proxy and your beacon leads you to someone who has nothing to do with the theft. Or... you get the idea.
There's a million ways to circumvent a system attempting to call home if it relies on a network to be available.
Some games may have game-specific 'install' support; but there isn't a generic caching mechanism.
The Xbox made the 'install' option system-wide for all games if you have the space. Some developers claim that installing their disc to the HDD will cause it to run slower, but it's definitely there for every 360 game. PS3 still requires that the game do the install, so it still varies by game on that platform.
Yea, I'm someone who celebrates Christmas in a purely secular fashion. Even though I don't believe the tenets of their faith, goodwill towards each other, the spirit of giving, and other concepts that go along with Christmas are just good things that warrant celebrating the holiday. It also makes the family gatherings with some of the more evangelical family members easier.
And no, the irony in the name "Secular Christmas" isn't lost on me...:)
Slashdot Mirror
You may want to check out the Simple English Wikipedia.
Just don't even worry about it. Nobody you complain to is really going to care.
I don't know. I imagine if you look at the data, find out whose drive it was previously, and complain to them, they might care.
They also might sue their drive recycling/refurbishment company if they're a business.
Sort of.
"Authentic" is an actual jersey that could be worn in a game (has all of the straps and stitching, a little more durable, larger to compensate for pads, etc). Replicas are just hockey sweaters that look like jerseys.
The DMCA is still missing the provision for a penalty for an invalid takedown request
No, it's there. I'm not aware of it ever actually being enforced, but it's definitely there.
Glad to see you buy the illusion. However, they need to actually get on the ballot in enough states to get elected (a nightmare in itself - last presidential election, I had R, D, Green, and Libertarian). On top of that, you have Rs and Ds running as third party based solely on the fact they cannot get nominated in their own party. Again, last presidential election, the Libertarian was a Republican (Barr), and Green was a Democrat (McKinney).
So where's my 3rd party option? My ballot choices last year was a Republican, a Republican as "third party," a Democrat, and a Democrat as "third party."
So, your against copyright law abuses, unless those abuses are done in a way that fall in line with your political beliefs, then it's okay? Sounds like you are part of the problem.
That tells me who I'm logged on as, what server I'm on, where I'm at, and whether or not I have root privileges.
Oh, don't get me started on file sent it from clients. I've received a chunk of data to import into a database... in a photoshop file (and it wasn't a text layer).
Needless to say, I sent that one back and asked for a different file format.
Oh, I do assume that the impossible happens quite a bit (I've seen enough "that shouldn't be possible" problems). I had told the end user that might be what's happening, or that the recipient forwarded it to a home address shared among the family. They didn't believe me, swore it was the system doing all of this (and instructed me to fix it).
...and they'll just make a better idiot. Two gems I've gotten over the years are:
"I can't log in when I type in my password! It's broken!" - The problem? They weren't typing in their username, they were only typing in their password.
My all time favorite was a customer who was very unhappy with an application we had created for them to send out event invitations and what not. I get an angry e-mail passed to me. The claim: "Whenever I type in someone's e-mail address, instead of e-mailing that person, the system figures out who their spouses and children are, and sends them the notification instead!" I had to repeatedly confirm that what they're describing is not possible. Even then, the person still angrily refused to believe me. If I were to create software that somehow psychically figure out all of that information, I'd be very rich, and probably be working for the government.
What's ridiculous is that Google only put it in small text on their homepage
That, and the giant black box over their name. Honestly, the Google link seems to be getting passed around people on Facebook like wildfire. And I'm loving it because the people I'm seeing spread it around are not my nerd friends, but the "average joes" who don't keep up on tech rights and such. Google's approach may not be as drastic as others, but it's definitely getting attention.
Excuse my incredulity, but is this attitude really helping? You are continuing to promulgate the idea that women need the help of men to survive -- like it's YOUR job to step in and say "enough."
Honestly, that's actually a somewhat sexist idea in itself. You seem to think that a community standing up against a vile actions by a few people is "defending a woman because she needs my help" mentality instead of a community showing that it doesn't tolerate that behavior among its members. I prefer to think it's the latter.
I'm guessing they'll just wait until post-election sessions to resurrect it and push it through. At that point, they won't care about their public image will be for another 2, 4, or 6 years.
Most people still have no idea what SOPA is
49 out of 50 times, you're correct. However, this bill started receiving coverage in national news outlets, and not just tech-related ones. Granted, some of what was covered wasn't quite accurate, but at least it was getting some national media coverage on the "this is bad" side of things.
And the very critical part of the story which takes the wind out of the whole "overcoming her drastic odds" part is she wasn't homeless 13 days ago. She and her family were evicted on Jan 1st, 2012.
Of course, that doesn't make for a good human interest story, most news outlets initially failed to mention that fact.
I also imagine that would also make their respective lawyers sweat quite a bit. I would like to see that happen just to get the word out and hopefully make the average person give a damn, but that would also be directly going against the powers that be in Congress. Suddenly, your company may end up under a microscope of some government committee for whatever reason.
Google's already been hinted at for anti-trust/privacy violations, Facebook scrutinized over their privacy... This move, while fully supported by us, would probably move that "hinted at" into "full-on investigation" territory. It's one of those "your company is fully within its rights doing that, but we're going to make your existence much more complicated and painful" situations.
Wouldn't that be just watching something in 3D on your DVR? Bonus points if your DVR supports backwards playback.
Huntsman doesn't come off as a rank-and-file Republican, and has some logical stances (for a conservative) on some issues. He also doesn't take a strictly partisan stance on everything, which is sorely, sorely needed in our government. However, since he appears more moderate than the rest of the field, he'll never make it out of the primary process.
I haven't taken a very scrutinizing look at Huntsman, but he seemed like the best choice to me from the field of candidates. Paul has some good ideas, but he's way too idealistic in some of his views, almost to the point of naivety.
4) Bing and Yahoo gave the same exact search results.
And they have since 2009. Yahoo uses Bing for its search result.
Is it cheaper for them to accept a payment via mail or at the store?
Not when I take it to extremes and pay at the store with a sack full of nickles.
There is no sidewalks at the particular stoplight (nor any pedestrian traffic) where my BS camera tickets are handed out, it's in an unincorporated area between two towns. The intersection itself could use the camera (it's notorious for the light being ran), but the majority of the tickets are for right turn without stops.
In all honestly, a right turn arrow would solve the issue entirely, but that's bad for town's revenue...
They're not reviled, we just hate when they're abused. Most people I know who've gotten red light tickets via a camera got one due to turning right on a red light at a very specific T-intersection in my area. The only possibly way the right-turners would pose a threat is if a car pulled a 180 turn and drove back into them. It's become quite a notorious intersection for the "bullshit camera" tickets (their phrase, not mine).
I also know of at least one red light camera that was removed specifically because it had increased accidents at the intersection where it is was installed. It had the usual shortened yellow, but it was on a downhill slope. The combination of the slightest inclement weather and overreaction to the yellow resulted in many cars losing traction and skidding downhill, straight into the intersection. They had slowed just enough for the light to complete the change, but had no control of their vehicle when they got to the intersection.
I'm actually in favor of red light cameras where they're needed (we do have some pretty bad intersections around here that need them), but there are others that are installed purely for monetary reasons (disregarding safety).
So they steal the data without connecting the laptop to a network. Or perhaps they plug into their network and use their firewall to only permit the specific traffic they want. Or they use some compromised machine as a proxy and your beacon leads you to someone who has nothing to do with the theft. Or... you get the idea.
There's a million ways to circumvent a system attempting to call home if it relies on a network to be available.
Some games may have game-specific 'install' support; but there isn't a generic caching mechanism.
The Xbox made the 'install' option system-wide for all games if you have the space. Some developers claim that installing their disc to the HDD will cause it to run slower, but it's definitely there for every 360 game. PS3 still requires that the game do the install, so it still varies by game on that platform.
Yea, I'm someone who celebrates Christmas in a purely secular fashion. Even though I don't believe the tenets of their faith, goodwill towards each other, the spirit of giving, and other concepts that go along with Christmas are just good things that warrant celebrating the holiday. It also makes the family gatherings with some of the more evangelical family members easier.
:)
And no, the irony in the name "Secular Christmas" isn't lost on me...